Case law

People v. Reese

47 Cal. 2d 112 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1956

We said in People v. … The board shall enter on its order granting or denying parole to such prisoners, the fact that such statements and recommendations have been considered by the board.

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. County of Los Angeles

158 Cal. 437 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1910

Co. v. City of Stockton, 149 Cal. 87 , [ 84 Pac. 771]; “roadway” is synonymous with “right of way.” “The only remaining class of property named in-the constitutional provision is ‘roadway.’ . . . … F. v. C. P. R. R. Co., [ 63 Cal. 467 , 49 Am. Rep. 98 ]), which is but another way of saying that it is the continuous strip of land not-exceeding in width the nine rods permitted by law (Civ.

Larkin v. Mullen

128 Cal. 449 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1900

(Harnish v. Bramer, 71 Cal. 155 ; Mendenhall v. Paris, 84 Cal. 193 ; Amestoy v. Elec *454 iric Rapid Transit Co., 95 Cal. 311 ; Bliss v. Sneath, 103 Cal. 43 ; Mullally v. Townsend, 119 Cal. 47 . See, also, Place v. … Mullen is entitled to a reasonable compensation for the care of the plaintiff during his sickness, and for his board; and in its judgment, after directing the defendants to execute a deed to the plaintiff, directs that he

Grossetti v. Sweasey

176 Cal. 793 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1917

Witness Morgan testified for the defense that witness Brown had said he would "bawl that company out good and proper," when he should get on the witness-stand. … The questions propounded to the witness, who had testified regarding Brown's alleged slangy threat, were entirely proper cross-examination.

Mojave River Irrigation District v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County

202 Cal. 717 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1927

(Maurer v. Mitchell, 53 Cal. 289 ; Camron v. Kenfield, 57 Cal. 550 ; Farmers’ Union v. Thresher, 62 Cal. 407 ; Pacific Tel. Co. v. Eshleman, 166 Cal. 640, 694 [Ann. Cas. 1915C, 822, 50 L. R. A. (N. … S.) 652, 137 Pac. 1119 ] ; Miller & Lux v. Board of Supervisors, 189 Cal. 260 [ 208 Pac. 304 ].)

Mery v. Brodt

121 Cal. 332 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1898

In Plummer v. Brown, 70 Cal. 546 , this court said: “To entitle the alleged owner, however, to such equitable relief he must show that he occupies such a status as entitles him to control the legal title.” … Tested by Plummer v. Brown, supra, it may well be said that these plaintiffs occupy such a status as entitles them to control the legal title. Measr ured by Robinson v.

Jost v. King

166 Cal. 394 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1913

(Paola Gas Co. v. Paola Glass Co., 56 Kan. 622 , [ 54 Am. St. Rep. 598 , 44 Pac. 621 ] ; Hunt Brothers Co. v. San Lorenzo Water Co., 150 Cal. 55 , [7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 913, 87 Pac. 1093 ]; Pendleton v. … Cline, 85 Cal. 143 , [ 24 Pac. 659 ] ; Witmer Brothers Co. v. Weid, 108 Cal. 580 , [ 41 Pac. 491 ].)

Hale v. Morgan

22 Cal. 3d 388 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1978

Norwood (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 148, 152-153 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 7 ]), or important issues of public policy are at issue (e.g., Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 1, 4-5 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 431 ]). … (Reed v. Reed (1971) 404 U.S. 71, 75-76 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 225, 229-230 , 92 S.Ct. 251 ]; McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745-746 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ]; Brown v.

Eaton v. Rocca

75 Cal. 93 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1888

the purpose of obtaining a judgment against Eocca for money alleged to be due the plaintiff for work and labor performed by him as a miner in and about a mine alleged to be the property of Eocca, and for the value of the board … (Henley v. Hotaling, 41 Cal. 28 ; Manasse v. Dinkelspiel, 68 Cal. 404 .)

Country of Plumas v. Wheeler

149 Cal. 758 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1906

Thus, in Philadelphia v. Western Union Tel. … Erro, 119 Cal. 119 , [51 Pac. 32]; Mono County v.

Robbins v. Superior Court

38 Cal. 3d 199 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1985

, who shall hold office during the pleasure of the board.” … (See, e.g., Berkeley v. Alameda County Board of Supervisors (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 961, 971 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 540 ]; Adkins v. Leach (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 771, 778-779 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 61 ]; Patten v.

Central Pacific Ry. Co. v. Feldman

152 Cal. 303 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1907

Co. v. … Co. v. Neale, 88 Cal. 50, 62 , [ 25 Pac. 977 ]; Santa Ana v. Harlin, 99 *311 Cal. 536, 545, [ 34 Pac. 224 ].)

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 Levi

39 Cal. 2d 41 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 1952

Brown, 102 Cal. … Brown, supra ; People v. Fields, 88 Cal. App.2d 30, 33 [ 198 P.2d 104 ]; In re Klein, 75 Cal. App.2d 600, 603 [ 171 P.2d 471 ]; People v. Hawthorne, 63 Cal. App.2d 262, 264 [ 146 P.2d 517 ]; see People v.

Mappin v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

198 Cal. 733 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1926

(Breske v. Minneapolis etc. Ry. Co., 115 Minn. 386 [ 132 N. W. 337 ].) The case of Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. Industrial Board, etc., 277 Ill. 512 [ 115 N. … Co. v. Industrial Board, 277 Ill. 512 [ 115 N. E. 647 ], which is one of the eases upon which the appellant herein most strongly relies.

Himmel v. State Bar

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

Flaherty v. … Yapp v.

Mitchell v. Patterson

120 Cal. 286 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1898

In July, 1892, the board of directors instructed the treasurer to open and keep five separate accounts, or funds, viz: Construction fund, bond fund, water fund, general fund, and contingent fund. … For a discussion and decision of that question by this court, see Welch v. Strother, 74 Cal. 413 , Lewis v. Widber, 99 Cal. 412 , and Hunt v. Broderick, 104 Cal. 313 .

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.