Case law

Manha v. Union Fertilizer Co.

151 Cal. 581 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1907

This identical question was before this court in the case of Tingley v. Times Mirror Co., ante, p. 1, [ 89 Pac. 1097 ], decided since the appeal in the present case was taken. … But when plaintiff boarded the vessel it was on its way home, and its voyage had already been long extended beyond the time contemplated in the contract of the parties.

Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court

16 Cal. 4th 1101 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1997

J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. In Stermer , as here, the nonverbal testimony at issue was a “physical reenactment.” (Stermer v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 779 .) … v.

Calatayud v. State of California

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 202 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 1998

Opinion BROWN, J. Under the common law doctrine known as the firefighter’s rule, the public’s liability is limited. … (See Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 ].) Disposition The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed. George, C.

Ingersoll v. Palmer

43 Cal. 3d 1321 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1987

(Brown v. Texas (1979) 443 U.S. 47, 50-51 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 361-362 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 ].) … (Brown v. Texas, supra, 443 U.S. at p. 51 [ 61 L.Ed.2d at p. 362 ], citing Delaware v. Prouse (1979) 440 U.S. 648, 663 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 673-674 ] and United States v.

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 ].)

Richmond v. Shasta Community Services District

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 2004

(Ibid.; accord, Leone v. Medical Board (2000) 22 Cal.4th 660, 665 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 , 995 P.2d 191 ].) … (See Southern Pacific Pipe Lines, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 451, 461-462 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 ].)

People v. Anderson

44 Cal. 65 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

(People v. Campbell, 30 Cal. 312 ; Brown v. McAllister, 39 Cal. 577 ; People v. Valencia, 43 Cal. 552 .)

Wallace v. Mayor of San Jose

29 Cal. 180 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

In Argenti v. … (McMinn v. Wheland, 27 Cal. 314 ; People v. Cassels, 5 Hill, 168; Harrington v. The People, 6 Barb. 610 .)

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.

Hendrick v. Crowley

31 Cal. 471 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

(Cochran v. Collins, 29 Cal. 131 ; Taylor v. Palmer, ante, 240.) II. … (Cole v. Soulsby, 21 Cal. 51 ; Hihn v. Peck, 30 Cal. 280 .) The order granting a new trial is reversed and the cause remanded.

Gaffney v. State Bar

20 Cal. 2d 735 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1942

(Woodard v. State Bar, 16 Cal. [2d] 755, 757 [ 108 P. (2d) 407 ].) … (Ring v. State Bar, 218 Cal. 747, 751 [ 24 P. (2d) 821 ]; Aydelotte v. State Bar, 209 Cal. 737, 740 [ 290 Pac. 41 ]; Propp v. State Bar, ante, p. 387 [ 125 P. (2d) 825 ].)

Schwerdtle v. County of Placer

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

In Beall v. … J., in Reed v.

Hebrew Home for Aged Disabled v. Friedman

171 Cal. 431 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1915

(New York Institute for the Blind v. How’s Exrs., 10 N. Y. 84 ; Short v. Wilson, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 33, 38; Morgan v. Durand, 51 Misc. Rep. 523 , [ 101 N. Y. Supp. 1002 ]; In re Durand, 56 Misc. Rep. 235 , [ 107 N. Y. … (Bates v. Byberg, 40 Cal. 463 ; Estate of Wright, 49 Cal. 550 ; Rosenberg v. Frank, 58 Cal. 387 ; Estate of Marrey, 65 Cal. 287 , [ 3 Pac. 896 ]; Goldtree v.

No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

13 Cal. 3d 68 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1974

(Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 259 ; accord, County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 804 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 377 ]; see Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. … (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 271.) The majority opinion in Hanly v.

Fernandez v. Lawson

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 422 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2003

BROWN, J., Concurring. Based on our decision in State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. … Corp. v.

People v. Barnes

42 Cal. 3d 284 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1986

Brown (1934) 138 Cal.App. 748, 750 [ 33 P.2d 460 ], italics added; 22 Cal.Jur., Rape, § 42, p. 398; see also People v. Brown (1874) 47 Cal. 447 .) … Brown (1947) 29 Cal.2d 555, 560 [ 176 P.2d 929 ], but see People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562 , 577-578 and 580, fn. 10 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 859 , 580 P.2d 274 ] [questioning Brown].)

Norris v. Crandall

6 Cal. Unrep. 706 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1901

It is claimed that the court erred in permitting the witness Brown to testify in defendants ’ behalf as an expert on the value of real estate, and in refusing to strike out his testimony. … Proc., subd. 9, sec. 1870; Goldstein v. Black, 50 Cal. 463 ; Reed v. Drais, 67 Cal. 491 , 8 Pac. 20 , and other cases.

Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc. v. Seeber

205 Cal. 690 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1928

Brown, and C. W. Brown as owners, respectively, in said actions. H. … Co. v.

Kamp v. Johnson

15 Cal. 2d 187 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1940

(Jameson Petroleum Co. v. State, 11 Cal. App. (2d) 677, 680 [ 54 Pac. (2d) 776 ] ; County of Ventura v. Barry, 207 Cal. 189, 195 [ 277 Pac. 333 ] ; People v. Smith, 123 Cal. 70, 75 [ 55 Pac. 765 ].) … Our conclusion is supported by State Tax Com. v.

Thorp v. Randazzo

41 Cal. 2d 770 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1953

(Shaw v. Board of Administration, 109 Cal.App.2d 770, 774 [ 241 P.2d 635 ].) … Board of Administration, supra, p. 776; also Estate of Crane, 6 Cal.2d 218, 221 [ 57 P.2d 476 , 104 A.L.R. 1101 ]), but each case must be decided upon its own facts. (Miller v. Miller, supra, p. 790 .)