Case law

Stimson v. Hanley

151 Cal. 379 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1907

In Bates v. … Moreover, in Bates v. Twist reference is made to Treanor v. Houghton, 103 Cal. 54 , [ 36 Pac. 1081 ], and the court say that in Treanor v.

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.

Himmel v. State Bar

4 Cal. 3d 786 · California Supreme Court · May 10, 1971

Flaherty v. … Yapp v.

People v. Griner

124 Cal. 19 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1899

(People v. Darr, 61 Cal. 554 ; People v. Etting, 99 Cal. 577 .) Again, it is held that an information signed by an assistant district attorney is valid. (People v. Turner, 85 Cal. 432 .) … In view of the fact that Brown, the party who was ready to give the newly-discovered evidence upon a second trial, was present as a witness at the first trial, subpoenaed by the defendant, we are not strongly impressed with

Marx v. McKinney

23 Cal. 2d 439 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1943

of Equalization was to receive $1,800 pursuant to an assignment he, McKinney, had made to such board to cover delinquent sales taxes, and the other $2,800 was to be paid by the company to Karp. … Code, sec. 1084; Union Supply Co. v.

In Re Calhoun

17 Cal. 3d 75 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1976

Thus, in People v. … Younger v.

In re Hawk

21 Cal. 3d 592 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1978

The board then recommended that Hawk be suspended from the practice of law for two months. … (See Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 891 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 544 P.2d 929 ].) *594 It is ordered that Richard E.

People v. Tilbury

54 Cal. 3d 56 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1991

(People v. … (In re Gary W. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 296, 304 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 486 P.2d 1201 ]; see also United States v. Brown (D.C.

People v. Pierce

14 Cal. 2d 639 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1939

California Horse Racing Board, at certain designated times. … (In re Lord, supra; People v. H. Jevne Co., supra; People v. Bill, supra; People v. Moronati, 70 Cal. App. 17 [ 232 Pac. 991 ] ; People v. Kinsley, supra.)

Gibson v. County of Mendocino

16 Cal. 2d 80 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1940

(Meindersee v. Meyers, 188 Cal. 498 [ 205 Pac. 1078 ] ; Smith v. Southern Pac. Co., 201 Cal. 57 [ 255 Pac. 500 ] ; Hayward v. Downer, 65 Cal. App. 450 [ 224 Pac. 265 ].)” … (Watson v. City of Alameda, 219 Cal. 331 [ 26 Pac. (2d) 286 ] ; Meyer v. City of San Rafael, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 46, 48 [ 70 Pac. (2d) 533 ].)

San Marcos Water District v. San Marcos Unified School District

42 Cal. 3d 154 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1986

(Spring Street Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1916) 170 Cal. 24, 29 .) The court in Solvang Mun. Improvement Dist. v. Board of Supervisors (1980) 112 Cal. … (Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service Commrs. (1942) 21 Cal.2d 399, 402 [ 132 P.2d 804 ].)

McDonald v. Agnew

122 Cal. 448 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1898

In Vrooman v. … Respondent cites Deidesheimer v. Brown, 8 Cal. 339 ; Lyman v. Milton, 44 Cal. 630 , and Kent v.

Butte Co. v. Boydstun

2 Cal. Unrep. 699 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1886

The question of necessity is settled by the board of supervisors, and, having so determined, it is not a question for the court to pass on: Tehama Co. v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 57 , 8 Pac. 673 . Judgment affirmed.

Moore v. Murdock

26 Cal. 514 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1864

(Wixon v. Bear River & A. W. M. Co. 24 Cal. 367 ; Walls v. Preston, 25 Cal. 59 ; Hutton v. Reed, 25 Cal. 478 .) … (Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 222; Rudd v. Davis, 3 Hill, 287 ; Stuart v. Simpson, 1 Wend. 376 ; Demper v. Souizer, 6 Wend. 436 ; Wilson v. Williams, 14 Wend. 146 ; Fort v. Collins, 21 Wend. 109 ; Jansen v.

In Re Clark

51 Cal. 2d 838 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1959

Brown, Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, James Don Keller, District Attorney (San Diego), and Claude B. Brown, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent. McCOMB, J. … (People v. O'Donnell, 37 Cal.App. 192, 196 [ 174 P. 102 ].) Second.

National Bank of D. O. Mills & Co. v. Herold

74 Cal. 603 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1888

(Wall v. County of Monroe, 103 U. S. 77 .) In Martin v. … (Dana v. San Francisco, 19 Cal. 491 ; People v. Gray, 23 Cal. 127 .) The answer of defendant alleges two grounds of defense: 1. That the warrant was issued without authority of law; 2.

Dore v. Southern Pac. Co.

163 Cal. 182 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1912

The judgment of a majority of said board was to be conclusive. … The board of arbitration made an award, fixing the value of the respective parcels of land in question.

Lord v. Dunster

79 Cal. 477 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1889

Van Horn, 9 Gal. 207; Saunders v. Haynes, 13 Cal. 152 ; Dorsey v. Barry, 24 Cal. 449 ; Casgrave v. Howland, 24 Cal. 457 ; Norwood v. Kenfield, 34 Cal. 332 ; Keller v. … The official returns of the board of supervisors gave Lord 140 votes in this precinct and Dunster 175 votes, a majority of 35 votes for Dunster.

Rideout v. City of Los Angeles

185 Cal. 426 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1921

(Gibson v. Board of Supervisors, 80 Cal. 359 , [ 22 Pac. 225 ].) Being identical in nature and in points raised, the two cases were consolidated for trial. … (People v. Prewett, 124 Cal. 7 , [ 56 Pac. 619 ]; State v. Board of Supervisors , 35 N. J.

People v. Camacho

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 232 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2000

BROWN, J. I fully concur in the determination to affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment reversing the denial of defendant’s suppression motion. … Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668, 692-696 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 981 P.2d 1019 ] (dis. opn. of Brown, J.); see also Comment, Fourth Amendment Protection for Juvenile Probationers in California, Slim or None?