Case law

Clute v. Turner

157 Cal. 73 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1909

Emery v. San Francisco Gas Co., 28 Cal. 345 ; Hagar v. Supervisors Yolo County, 47 Cal. 222 ; Hornung v. McCarthy, 126 Cal. 17 , [ 58 Pac. 303 ]; Duncan v. Ramish, 142 Cal. 686 , [ 76 Pac. 661 ], See, also, French v. … That it decides nothing of the kind is pointed out in French v. Barker Asphalt Co., 181 U. S. 324 , [21 Sup. Ct. 625], and *82 Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371 , [21 Sup. Ct. 616], See, also, Duncan v.

Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists

1 Cal. 3d 160 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1969

The only recognized certification therein is the “Diplómate” certificate conferred by the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO), which is recognized by the ADA as the sole certifying board within this specialty. … As stated in Falcone v.

Morris v. Zuckerman

69 Cal. 2d 686 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1968

(See Grunwald-Marx, Inc. v. Los Angeles Joint Board, 52 Cal.2d 568, 589-590 [ 343 P.2d 23 ].) … (See O’Malley v. Wilshire Oil Co., 59 Cal.2d 482, 490-491 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 452 , 381 P.2d 188 ] (collective bargaining agreement) ; Morris v. Zuclterman, 257 Cal.App.2d 91, 94-97 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 714 ]; *691 Cook v.

Ham v. Grapeland Irrigation District

172 Cal. 611 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1916

(Montgomery v. Tutt, 11 Cal. 307 .) … (Hughson v. Crane, 115 Cal. 415 , [ 47 Pac. 120 ]; Stinson v. Alessandro Irr. Dist., 135 Cal. 389 , [ 67 Pac. 496, 1034 ]; Leeman v. Perris Irr. Dist., 140 Cal. 540 , [ 74 Pac. 24 ].)

California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams

11 Cal. 2d 233 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1938

The cases cited by appellant—California Canning Peach Growers v. Downey, 76 Cal. App. 1 [ 243 Pac. 679 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Harris, 91 Cal. … App. 654 [ 267 Pac. 572 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Bardell & Oregoni, 132 Cal.

Rand v. Bossen

27 Cal. 2d 61 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1945

In Tuttle v. … Reliance is placed upon the series of cases including McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U.S. 662 [ 10 S.Ct. 972 , 34 L.Ed. 304 ], and In re Brown, 135 U.S. 662, 701 [ 10 S.Ct. 972 , 34 L.Ed. 304 ].

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.

East Bay Garbage Co. v. Washington Township Sanitation Co.

52 Cal. 2d 708 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1959

(Larsen v. Industrial Acc. Com., 34 Cal.2d 772, 776 [ 215 P.2d 16 ]; People v. Centr-O-Mart, 34 Cal.2d 702, 704 [ 214 P.2d 378 ]; see also Reiter v. Chapman, 177 Wash. 392 [ 31 P.2d 1005, 1007 , 92 A.L.R. 828 ].) … Co. v. Los Angeles, 45 Cal.App. 149 [ 187 P. 163 ].)

McCurrie v. Southern Pacific Co.

122 Cal. 558 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1898

His wife, testified: “We boarded the train together at Third and Townsend streets. … (See, also, Boyce v. California Stage Co., 25 Cal. 460 ; Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574 ; 13 Am. St. Rep. 175 ; Bush v. Barnett, 96 Cal. 202 ; Judson v. Giant Powder Co., 107 Cal. 549 ; 48 Am. St.

People v. Ketchum

73 Cal. 635 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1887

(See Johnson v. Johnson, 30 Mo. 72 ; Smith v. Brown, 8 Kan. 610 ; Wall v. Williamson, 11 Ala. 839 . Contra: Roche v. Washington, 19 Ind. 53 ; State v. Ta-cha-na-tak, 64 N. C. 614 .) … (People v. Montgomery, 53 Cal. 576 ; People v. Marseiler, 70 Cal. 98 ; People v. Daniels, 70 Cal. 521 .)

In Re Buckley

10 Cal. 3d 237 · California Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1973

Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 376 (1947). ‘Trial courts . . . must be on guard against confusing offenses to their sensibilities with obstruction to the administration of justice.’ (Brown v. … {Id., quoting Brown v. United States (1958) 356 U.S. 148, 153 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 595 , 78 S.Ct. 622 , 72 A.L.R.2d 818 ].)

Lawrence v. Doolan

68 Cal. 309 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1885

As we understand the decision of this court in Randall v. … (People v. Edwards, 9 Cal. 292 .)

Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara

219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 859 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2017

State Bd. of Equal. (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 780, 801 (Bank of America)), and are “not to be guided by labels” (Beamer v. Franchise Tax Board (1977) 19 Cal.3d 467, 475) or “bare legislative assertion” (Flynn v. … (Thompson v. Board of Supervisors (1896) 111 Cal. 553, 558.) Moreover, the total compensation the Ordinance requires for granting the franchise is 2 percent of SCE‟s “Gross Annual Receipts.”

City of Sacramento v. Adams

171 Cal. 458 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1915

(See Clouse v. San Diego, 159 Cal. 434 , [ 114 Pac. 573 ]; Fragley v. Phelan, 126 Cal. 395 , [ 58 Pac. 923 ].) … It was said in City of Redlands v.

Gregory v. McPherson

13 Cal. 562 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

If authority were needed to support these plain propositions, they are abundant. (1 Starkie’s Ev. 160—174; Patterson v. Winn, 5 Pet. 239 ; Id. 241 ; U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 728 .) … This very question arose in the case of Bloom v. Burdick, ( 1 Hill, 133 .)

Joseph v. Macowsky

19 L.R.A. 53 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1892

(Browne on Trade-marks, secs. 71, 474; Palmer v. Harris, 60 Pa. St. 156; 100 Am. Dec. 557 ; Fetridge v. Wells, 13 How. Pr. 385 ; Hobbs v. Francais, 19 How. Pr. 571 ; Manhattan Medicine Co. v. Hood, 108 U. S. 218 .) … In Seigert v. Abbott, 61 Md. 284 , 48 Am.

Strouse v. Police Court

85 Cal. 49 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1890

San Francisco, on April 24, 1890, charging the petitioner with a misdemeanor in having transacted and carried on the business of selling meat without having first taken out a license, as required by an ordinance of the board … (Levy v. Wilson, 69 Cal. 105 .) Application for writ denied. Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., Fox, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

Pierce v. Merrill

128 Cal. 473 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1900

We have already held in Pierce v. … (McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 180 ; 95 Am. Dec. 170 ; Biddel v. Brizzolara, 56 Cal. 374 .)

California Teachers Assn. v. Riles

29 Cal. 3d 794 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1981

The first case after Everson dealing with the constitutionality of providing textbooks for use in religious schools was Board of Education v. Allen (1968) 392 U.S. 236 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 , 88 S.Ct. 1923 ]. … (Board of Education v. Allen, supra, 392 U.S. 236, at pp. 244, 248 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1060, at pp. 1066, 1068 ]; Meek v. Pittenger, supra, 421 U.S. 349, 359-362 [ 44 L.Ed.2d 217, 228-230 ]; Wolman v.

Richardson v. Chicago Packing & Provision Co.

6 Cal. Unrep. 606 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1900

Defendants had judgment, from which, and from an order denying his motion for new trial, plaintiff V. L. Fortin appeals. … It was held in Welch v.