Case law

People v. Reyes

12 Cal. 3d 486 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1974

Penn stated the man she saw leaving the victim's apartment wore a brown jacket and either a scarf around his neck or a beard. At the time he was arrested Venegas was bearded and wearing a dark brown coat. However, Mrs. … She described the man as wearing a brown jacket and a scarf or a beard. When arrested, Venegas was wearing a brown jacket and a beard. Dismissing Mrs.

Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

11 Cal. 4th 376 · California Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1995

L.Rev. at p. 503; accord, Brown, The Rise and Threatened Demise of the Prima Facie Tort Principle, supra, 54 Nw. U. L.Rev. at p. 563). *396 In Mogul Steamship Co. v. … (NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla. (1984) 468 U.S. 85, 107 [ 82 L.Ed.2d 70, 87 , 104 S.Ct. 2948 ].) The interfering party is properly liable to the interfered-with party when he restrains trade.

Large v. Diercken

198 Cal. 103 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1926

(Brown v. Clark, 77 N. Y. 369 ; see, also, In re Kaufman, 131 N. Y. 620 [15 L. R. A. 292, 30 N. E. 242 ]; Matter of McLarney, 153 N. Y. 416 [ 60 Am. St. Rep. 664 , 47 N. E. 817 ].) … v.

The Housing Authority v. Dockweiler

14 Cal. 2d 437 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1939

(Board of Law Lib. Trus *447 tees v. Board of Supervisors, 99 Cal. 571, 573 [ 34 Pac. 244 ]; Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 12 Cal. (2d) 412 [ 84 Pac. (2d) 1034 ].) … (See, also, Veterans’ Welfare Board v. Jordan, 189 Cal. 124, 145 [ 208 Pac. 284 , 22 A. L. R. 1515].)

Gately v. Leviston

63 Cal. 365 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1883

Without such a petition or recommendation the appellant contends that the board could not acquire jurisdiction to order the work done.Such is our understanding of the law. (Stats. 1871-72, § 4, p. 805; Dyer v. … North, 44 Cal. 157 ; Dyer v. Miller, 58 Cal. 585 .) Judgment and order reversed. Thorrtor, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

Dudney v. State Bar

8 Cal. 2d 555 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1937

(Mills v. State Bar, 6 Cal. (2d) 565 [ 58 Pac. (2d) 1273 ].) … (Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal. (2d) 75 [ 39 Pac. (2d) 403 ].) Measured by these principles the action of the board of governors is fully justified by the findings. It is ordered that William E.

Woolridge v. Boardman

115 Cal. 74 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1896

(Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances, sec. 261; Elwell v. Walker, 52 Iowa, 256, 265 .) The condition of insolvency was a circumstance tending to show fraudulent intent (Emmons v. … Co. v. Mayne, 83 Cal. 566 .)

People v. Neely

6 Cal. 4th 877 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1993

(People v. Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1142 , italics added.) … Deputy Brown, however, indicated he and Deputy Hill were in pursuit of the same man.

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 ].)

Peacock v. Payne

1 Cal. 2d 104 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1934

The appraisal of the land was ordered by the board of supervisors, and the claim was approved by the board and ordered paid. … (See City of South Pasadena v. Pasadena Land *110 etc. Co., 152 Cal. 579 [ 93 Pac. 490 ]; Uhl v. Badaracco, 199 Cal. 270 [ 248 Pac. 917 ].)

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.”

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.

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 ].)

Dingley v. McDonald

124 Cal. 682 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1899

But that was the situation in Wittenbrock v. Bellmer, supra. … Both parties rely upon Malloye v. Coubrough, 96 Cal. 649 .

Fraser v. Carman-Ryles

8 Cal. 2d 143 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1937

In Estate of Brown, 143 Cal. 450 [ 77 Pac. 160 ], and Clayes v. Nutter, 49 Cal. … Therefore a new trial is unnecessary (Scudder v.

People v. Kimble

44 Cal. 3d 480 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1988

Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 540 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 726 P.2d 516 ] (revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ].) … In People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 540 (revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v.

In Re Robbins

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 153 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1998

BROWN, J., Concurring and Dissenting. … Mosk, J., and Brown, J., would deny the petition solely on the merits.

Innis v. The Steamer Senator

1 Cal. 459 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1851

In the case of Simpson v. … [Story on Agency, sec. 135 to 138; T hallhimer v. Brinckerhaff, 4 Wend. 394 ; Hubbard v. Elmer, 7 id. 446 ; Mateer v. Brown, decided in this court, ante, p. 221.)

Alarid v. Vanier

50 Cal. 2d 617 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1958

Shewalter, 110 Cal.App.2d 655, 658 [ 243 P.2d 549 ]; Parmalee v. Bartolomei, 106 Cal.App.2d 68, 70-72 [ 234 P.2d 1019 ]; Wilkerson v. Brown, 84 Cal.App.2d 401, 406-407 [ 190 P.2d 958 ]; Mecchi v. … Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation, 23 Cal.2d 256, 261-262 [ 143 P.2d 929 ]; England v. Hospital of Good Samaritan, 22 Cal.App.2d 226, 230 [ 70 P.2d 692 ] ; Ellis v. Jewett, 18 Cal.App.2d 629, 634 [ 64 P.2d 432 ].)

Corato v. Estate of Corato

201 Cal. 155 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1927

The allegations of the second cause of action are similar to those alleged by the plaintiff in the case of Mayborne v. Citizens T. & S. Bank, 46 Cal. … The case falls clearly within the rule announced in Krumb v. Campbell, 102 Cal. 370 [ 36 Pac. 664 ] [and other eases cited].