Case law

Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. State Dept. of Public Health

California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2020

of the appeals board’ ”].) … Brown and Nimrod P. Elias, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.

Carleton v. Townsend

28 Cal. 219 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1865

Notes, 606 ; Thompson v. Manrow, 1 Cal. 428 ; Mott v. Smith, 16 Cal. 554 ; Jackson v. Boneham, 15 Johns. 226 .) … (Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 612 ; Holladay v. Frisbie, Id. 630 ; San Francisco v. Beideman, 17 Cal. 443 ; Hubbard v. Sullivan, 18 Cal. 508 ; Board of Education v. Fowler, 19 Cal. 11 ; Wolf v. Baldwin, Id. 306; Hubbard v.

People v. Lucky

45 Cal. 3d 259 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1988

(California v. Brown, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 546 [ 93 L.Ed.2d at p. 943 (conc. opn. of O’Connor, J.)].) … Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 542 , and fn. 13; see also Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S. 320, 328-329 [ 86 L.Ed.2d 231, 239 , 105 S.Ct. 2633 ].) In People v.

Valdez v. Percy

35 Cal. 2d 338 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1950

A report of the clinical examina *340 tion was sent to the Malignancy Board of the hospital for recommendation. … Pursuant to the board’s recommendation the plaintiff reported to the hospital for surgery on March 1, 1934.

International Business Machines Corp. v. Truck Insurance Exchange

2 Cal. 3d 1026 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1970

Corp. v. Brown (1962) 35 Ill.App.2d 43 [ 181 N.E.2d 191 ], Red Line’s insurer, Truck, also contends that even if IBM was a user of the truck, the injury to Hatton was not caused by IBM’s use. As we noted in Entz v. … V. Brown, supra, 35 Ill.App.2d 43 [ 181 N.E.2d 191, 194 ]: that the use of the vehicle must be the “efficient and predominating cause” of the injury. That language, however, does nothing but obscure matters.

People v. Schader

62 Cal. 2d 716 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 1965

A store clerk, witness Brown, had observed defendants in a conversation at the produce area of the store prior to the activity at the cash registers. Brown saw Schader standing in the vicinity of a second eheckstand. … It makes *730 no difference whether the confession was. improperly obtained by physical brutality (Brown v. Mississippi (1936) 297 U.S. 278 [ 56 S.Ct. 461 , 80 L.Ed. 682 ]; People v.

Tompkins v. Montgomery

116 Cal. 120 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1897

Finnegan, 54 Cal. 311 ; Paige v. Roeding, 89 Cal. 69 ; *123 Woodside v. Hewel, 107 Cal. 141 .) … (Schacht v. Odell, 52 Cal. 449 ; Hill v. Finnegan, supra; Brown v. Plummer, 70 Cal. 337 .) 4.

People v. Building Maintenance Contractors' Ass'n

41 Cal. 2d 719 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1953

In Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters, 29 Cal.2d 34 [ 172 P.2d 867 ], we held that because the exemption was added to the statute by amendment it was separable from the rest of the act. … (Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters, supra, 29 Cal.2d 34, 44 ; Endicott v. Rosenthal, 216 Cal. 721, 726 [ 16 P.2d 673 ] ; People v. H. Jevne Co., 179 Cal. 621, 625 [ 178 P. 517 ].)

Kutchin v. Engelbret

129 Cal. 635 · California Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1900

If the board had no such power, then the resolution ordering the work must be construed as including them. … (Warren v.

Kelly v. Santa Barbara Consolidated Railroad

171 Cal. 415 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1915

(Boyd v. Heron, 125 Cal. 454 , [ 58 Pac. 64 ]; Patterson v. San Francisco etc. Ry., 147 Cal. 182 , [ 81 Pac. 531 ]; Kline v. Santa Barbara etc. Ry. Co., 150 Cal. 741 , [ 90 Pac. 125 ]; Cary v. Los Angeles Ry. … Manifestly, upon the steps or running-board of a car his position is not so safe as though he were seated within the body of the car.

Sheldon v. Murray

1 Cal. Unrep. 891 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1875

Howell, 14 Cal. 465 ; Owen v. Fowler, 24 Cal. 192 ; Hestres v. Brennan, 37 Cal. 385 . … Brown, 46 Cal. 202 , and cases there cited. These actions were respectively commenced in January, 1872. At that time Catherine F. Sheldon and Gabriel W. Gunn held the legal title to the premises in controversy.

McCordic v. Crawford

23 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1943

The Loopa was somewhat like an old-fashioned swing, with a board suspended by steel rods from an axle some fifteen or twenty feet above the ground. … It was so constructed that riders standing on the board could cause the swing to make a complete circle around the axle. The feet of the riders were strapped to the board and their shoulders to the steel rods.

Bekins Van Lines, Inc. v. Johnson

21 Cal. 2d 135 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1942

(Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Roberts, 176 Cal. 183 [ 167 P. 845 ]. See, also, McHenry v. Alford, 168 U.S. 651, 666 [ 18 S.Ct. 242 , 42 L.Ed. 614 ]; State v. … In the case of McHenry v.

Ingram v. Justice Court

69 Cal. 2d 832 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1968

(See, e.g., Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 977 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 ]; Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ]; United States v. … (Parks v. Superior Court (1952) 38 Cal.2d 609, 613-614 [ 241 P.2d 521 ]; see also People v. Bird (1931) 212 Cal. 632 [ 300 P. 23 ] [commitment for manslaughter, charge of murder] ; People v.

Roth v. Reclamation District No. 1001

183 Cal. 447 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1920

The plans for the reclamation were formulated and filed with the board of supervisors and subsequently from time to time amendments to that plan were filed. … (Reclamation Dist. v. Hershey, 160 Cal. 692, 694 , [117 Pac. 904]; Reclamation Dist. v. Birks, 159 Cal. 233, 240 , [ 113 Pac. 170 ].)

Stephenson v. Drever

16 Cal. 4th 1167 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1997

When a dividend is lawfully declared by the board of directors it vests in the owner of record of the shares and creates a debt in his favor against the corporation. ( Smith v. Taecker (1933) 133 Cal. … BROWN, J., Dissenting. Plaintiff Allen W. Stephenson was employed as the chief financial officer of Drever Partners, Inc. (hereafter Drever Partners), a closely held corporation.

Lehn v. City of San Francisco

66 Cal. 76 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1884

(Guerrin v. San Francisco, No. 6090 ; Jessup v. San Francisco, No. 6842.) 2. Section 4072 of the Political Code is inapplicable to the city and county of San Francisco. (Pol. C. 4087.) … In People v.

Schwerdtle v. County of Placer

108 Cal. 589 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1895

In Beall v. … J., in Reed v.

Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson

24 Cal. 2d 40 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1944

Inc. v. … State Board of Equalization v.

Garvey v. Byram

18 Cal. 2d 279 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1941

(Moss v. Shear, 25 Cal. 38 [ 85 Am. Dec. 94 ]; McMinn v. Whelan, 27 Cal. 300 ; Coppinger v. Rice, 33 Cal. 408 ; Bernal v. Lynch, 36 Cal. 135 ; Barrett v. Amerein, 36 Cal. 322 ; Garwood v. … Hastings, 38 Cal. 216 ; Reily v. Lancaster, 39 Cal. 354 ; Christy v. Fisher, 58 Cal. 256 ; Barnard v. Wilson, 74 Cal. 512 [ 16 Pac. 307 ]; Emeric v. Alvarado, 90 Cal. 444 [ 27 Pac. 356 ]; Gates v.