Case law

Hunter v. Mohawk Petroleum Corporation

51 Cal. 2d 439 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1959

(See Guild v. Brown, 115 Cal. App. 374, 381 [ 1 P.2d 528 ].) Raber v. Tumin, 36 Cal.2d 654 [ 226 P.2d 574 ] ; Edwards v. Hollywood Canteen, 27 Cal.2d 802 [167 P.2d 729]; Johnstone v. Panama Pacific I.E. … Co., 187 Cal. 323 [ 202 P. 34 ]; Sample v. Eaton, 145 Cal.App.2d 312 [ 302 P.2d 431 ] [hearing denied by the Supreme Court] ; Goldsmith v. Mills, 130 Cal.App.2d 493 [ 279 P.2d 51 ]; Thomas v.

People v. Howard

51 Cal. 4th 15 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2010

A few minutes later, the helicopters were still there and Brown looked out again. This time, the man was backed up against a wall as if trying to stay out of view. Brown called the police and described the man. … Brown described this person to the dispatcher as well. When the dispatcher told her the suspects *22 were armed, Brown hid in her bathroom.

City of Compton v. Boland

26 Cal. 2d 310 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1945

In Miller v. … In Miller v.

Topley v. Zeeman

216 Cal. 182 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1932

I just saw the ends of boards”. … (Mairo v. Yellow Cab Co., 208 Cal. 350, 351 [ 281 Pac. 66 ] ; California Packing Corp. v. Lopez, 207 Cal. 600, 603 [64 A. L. R. 1412, 279 Pac. 664 ]; Bannister v. Los Angeles Ry.

Steiner v. State Bar

68 Cal. 2d 707 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1968

Petitioner contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the board’s findings. … Findings of fact made by local administrative committees and disciplinary boards are not binding on this court, which may weigh the evidence upon which the findings rest. (Zitny v.

MacNicol v. E. Coalinga Oil Fields Corp.

22 Cal. 2d 742 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1943

He also relies on Allan v. … v.

City of Long Beach v. Bozek

31 Cal. 3d 527 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1982

(American Civil Liberties Union v. Board of Education (1961) 55 Cal.2d 167, 178 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 647 , 359 P.2d 45 , 94 A.L.R.2d 1259 ], cert, den., 368 U.S. 819 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 25 , 82 S.Ct. 34 ].) … (Board of Ed. of Miami Trace Local Sch. Dist. v.

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.

Crossman v. Kenniston

97 Cal. 379 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1893

(Fraser v. Alexander, 75 Cal. 147 .) It is claimed by respondent that the case just cited was overruled in Wickersham v. Brittan, 93 Cal. 34 . In this he is mistaken. … The only matter decided in the Wickersham case germane to the present inquiry was, that the decision in Fraser v.

People v. Howard

16 Cal. 4th 1081 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1997

Gray had cocaine in his pocket, and Brooks had cocaine in a brown coin purse in her pocket. Neither Brooks nor Gray was near the chair on which the officers found the bag of cocaine. … But section 1170(d) specifies that the court is to exercise this authority only "on its own motion, or ... upon the recommendation of the Director of Corrections or the Board of Prison Terms."

Slater v. McAvoy

123 Cal. 437 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1899

(Woerner’s American Law of Administration, secs. 351, 352, 536; Balch v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 138 ; Giles v. Brown, 60 Ga. 658 .) … (Tudhope v. Potts, 91 Mich. 490 ; Tudhope v. Avery, 106 Mich. 149 ; Farrington v. Secor, 91 Iowa, 606 ; Fulgham v. Herstein, 77 Ala. 496 ; Moore v. Armstrong, 9 Port. 697 ; State v. Porter, 9 Ind. 342 ; Curtis v.

Rubio v. Superior Court

24 Cal. 3d 93 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1979

See, e.g., Nyquist v. Mauclet (1977) 432 U.S. 1 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 63 , 97 S.Ct. 2120 ] (financial assistance for higher education); Examining Board v. … (Ramirez v. Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 199, 207-211 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 507 P.2d 1345 ]; revd. on other grounds sub nom. Richardson v.

Maxwell v. City of Santa Rosa

53 Cal. 2d 274 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1959

Both mandamus and certiorari are also available, in proper eases, to review the determinations of city boards and councils (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5; Nathan H. Schur, Inc. v. … (Boren v. State Personnel Board, 37 Cal.2d 634, 638 [ 234 P.2d 981 ].)

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.

Ames v. Empire Star Mines Co., Ltd.

17 Cal. 2d 213 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1941

This principle is further supported by the California cases (Van Ness v. Rooney, 160 Cal. 131 [ 116 Pac. 392 ]; Chicago Quartz M. Co. v. Oliver, 75 Cal. 194 [ 16 Pac. 780 , 7 Am. St. Rep. 143 ]; Brown v. Luddy, 121 Cal. … (Van Ness v. Rooney, supra; Brown v. Luddy, supra.)

Gillum v. Johnson

7 Cal. 2d 744 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1936

Whether the benefit paying feature of the pooled fund plan of our state law will meet the tests laid down in the Railroad Retirement Act case (Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U. S. 330 [55 Sup. … Ed. 713 ]; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27 [24 Sup. Ct. 769, 49 L. Ed. 78 , 1 Ann. Cas. 561]; Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U. S. 124 [50 Sup. Ct. 46, 74 L. Ed. 226 ] ; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509 [19 Sup.

Fraser v. California Street Cable Railroad

146 Cal. 714 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1905

Without substantial conflict, the evidence shows that the plaintiff as a passenger boarded defendant’s car going west on California Street at the northwest corner of .California and Sansome streets. … The cases of Lee v. Market-Street Ry. Co., 135 Cal. 295 , Esrey v. Southern Pacific Co., 103 Cal. 541 , and other eases cited by appellant bear very little analogy to the case in hand.

Anglo London Paris Co. v. Johnson

194 Cal. 712 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1924

Such in effect was the conclusion of the supreme court of Washington in the ease of Richards v. … As was pointed out in a recent decision of this court involving a somewhat analogous situation (Anglo London Paris Co. v.

Halleck v. Mixer

16 Cal. 574 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

(Brown v. Sax, 7 Cow. 95 ; Baker v. Wheeler, 8 Wend. 505 ; Wingate v. Smith, 20 Maine, 287; Davis v. Easley, 13 Ill. 192 .) *579 2. … They are all commented upon and explained by that Court in Harlan v. Harlan (15 Penn. State R. 513).

Eschwig v. State Bar

24 Cal. 2d 70 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1944

The Board of Governors adopted the committee's findings, but recommended that petitioner be suspended from practice for a period of six months. … (Stephens v. State Bar, 19 Cal.2d 580 [ 122 P.2d 549 ]; Trusty v. State Bar, 16 Cal.2d 550 [ 107 P.2d 10 ]; Waterman v. State Bar, 8 Cal.2d 17 [ 63 P.2d 1133 ]; Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal.2d 75 [ 39 P.2d 403 ]; Marsh v.