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.

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.

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.

People v. Pearson

53 Cal. 4th 306 · California Supreme Court · Jan 9, 2012

(Uttecht v. Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 9.) … (Uttecht v. Brown, supra, 551 U.S. at p. 9.)

L. E. White Lumber Co. v. County of Mendocino

177 Cal. 710 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1918

In Durham v. … Appellant cites Allen v. Pedro, 136 Cal. 1 , [ 68 Pac. 99 ], Roberts v. Gebhart, 104 Cal. 67 , [ 37 Pac. 782 ], and Slade v. County of Butte, 14 Cal.

Jeppi v. Brockman Holding Co.

34 Cal. 2d 11 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1949

In Carrier v. … McCartney v. Clover Valley Land & Stock Co., (8 Cir.) 232 P. 697 [ 146 C.C.A. 623 ], citing Boggs v. Lakeport Agricultural Ass'n., 11 1 Cal. 354 [ 43 P. 1106 ].” Yet in Corporation of America 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 .)

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.

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.

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 .)

Seiterle v. Superior Court

57 Cal. 2d 397 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1962

(See also People v. Brown (1958) 49 Cal.2d 577, 590-593 [13] [ 320 P.2d 5 ].) The Chapman- Brown rule is not only better law; it is better penology. … Carter (1961) *406 56 Cal.2d 549, 565 [11] [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 645 , 364 P.2d 477 ]; People v. Wein (1958) 50 Cal.2d 383, 409-410 [42] [ 326 P.2d 457 ]; People v. Brown (1958), supra, 49 Cal.2d 577 , 590- 593 [13]; People 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.

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.

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.