Case law

Wittenbrock v. Cass

110 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1895

(Citing Brison v. Brison, 75 Cal. 525 ; 7 Am. St. Rep. 189 , and other cases.) We do not think this contention can be sustained. … The case of Bury v. Young, 98 Cal. 446 , 35 Am. St. Rep. 186 , is in many respects very similar to this.

Coast Community College Dist. v. Comm. on State Mandates

California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2022

v. … v.

Moore v. Bowes

8 Cal. 2d 162 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1937

Dist. v. Superior Court, 182 Cal. 315, 326 [ 187 Pac. 1056 ]; Davis v. Hudgins, (Tex. Civ. App.) 225 S. W. 73, 76 ; Black v. Elkhorn Coal Corp., 233 Ky. 588 [ 26 S. W. (2d) 481, 483, 484 ].) … (Yates v. Yates, 255 Ill. 66 [ 99 N. E. 360, 362 , Ann. Cas. 1913D, 143]; Griswold v. Sackett, 21 R. I. 206 [ 42 Atl. 868 ].)

Buhne v. Corbett

43 Cal. 264 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1872

(Klink v. Cohen, 13 Cal. 623 ; Uridias v. Morrill, 25 Cal. 31 .) 2. … (Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 672 ; Wilton v. Cleveland, 30 Cal. 192 .) We are, therefore, of opinion that the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Tiernan v. Trustees of California State University and Colleges

33 Cal. 3d 211 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1982

Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 425, p. 4391; Johnston v. … (Abelleira v.

Coleman v. San Rafael Turnpike. Rd. Co.

49 Cal. 517 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

The evidence tends to prove each of these facts; and these facts establish a sufficient possession, *521 within the rule laid down in Sepulveda v. … , known as the San Bafael Turnpike Boad Company, and their successors in interest, in proportion to the amount of stock held or owned by each, with powers of sale, to sell and convey the same, under the direction of the Board

In Re Katcher

39 Cal. 2d 30 · California Supreme Court · May 13, 1952

Hayes v. … (See, also, Brown v. Fitzgerald, 39 F.2d 870, 872 .)

County of San Bernardino v. Harsh California Corp.

52 Cal. 2d 341 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1959

Defendant pleaded that the designee of the Secretary of Defense had determined that defendant was entitled to a reduction of $27,759 in its taxes, that notice of this determination had been served on plaintiff’s board of … Alexander, 87 Utah 376 [ 49 P.2d 408, 415-416 ] ; Estate of Quinn, 43 Cal.2d 785 , 787 [ 278 P.2d 692 ]; Koehn v. State Board of Equalization, 50 Cal.2d 432, 435-437 [ 326 P.2d 502 ].)

Miller v. Heilbron

58 Cal. 133 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

He demanded of the Board of Assessors that the valuation on his shares should be reduced to one dollar—the sum fixed by his affidavit as the balance of value. The Board of Assessors refused to make the reduction. … In People v.

Tulare Irrigation District v. Collins

154 Cal. 440 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1908

Act [Stats. 1887, p. 29], The other parties plaintiff are members of the board of directors of the irrigation district and owners of land within its territorial limits. … (Seale v. Doane, 17 Cal. 484 ; Fulton v. Hanlow, 20 Cal. 480 ; Carlton v. Townsend, 28 Cal. 219 ; San Francisco v. Cannavan, 42 Cal. 541 ; Ames v. City of San Diego, 101 Cal. 390 , [ 35 Pac. 1005 ]; San Francisco v.

Hayes v. Silver Creek & Panoche Land & Water Co.

136 Cal. 238 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1902

(Mann v. Haley, 45 Cal. 63 ; Bixby v. Bent, 59 Cal. 532 .) … (Hensly v. Tartar, 14 Cal. 508 ; Buhne v. Corbett, 43 Cal. 264 ; Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 671 .)

Swain v. Burnette

76 Cal. 299 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1888

(Hallock v. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 172 ; Choynski v. Cohen, 39 Cal. 502 ; 2 Am. Rep. 476 ; Pittsburgh Mining Co. v. Greewood, 39 Cal. 71 ; Rhoda v. Alameda County, 52 Cal. 350 ; and see Howard v. Galloway, 60 Cal. 11 .) … (See Brown v. Covillaud, 6 Cal. 571 ; Fowler v. Sutherland, 68 Cal. 415 .) If it be defectively stated, the remedy was by demurrer, and not by motion to strike out. (Jackson v. Lebar, 53 Cal. 258 , 259.)

People v. Fudge

7 Cal. 4th 1075 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1994

(Hardy, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 205; see People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 447-448 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].) … (People v. Brown (1993) 6 Cal.4th 322, 337 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 710 , 862 P.2d 710 ]; People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 287 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 786 P.2d 892 ].)

Noble v. Cleland

7 Cal. Unrep. 362 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1909

The office in question was created by an ordinance of’the board of trustees of the city. Plaintiff claims that the board had no power to pass the ordinance creating *363 the office, and hence that it is void. … In the case of De Merritt v. Welden, 154 Cal. 545 , 16 Ann. Cas. 955, 98 Pac. 537, 671 , this court, in bank, considered this question, and declared the ordinance valid.

People v. Brendlin

45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 50 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2006

In response to the deputy’s inquiry, defendant falsely identified himself as Bruce Brown. … (See United States v. Drayton, supra, 536 U.S. at pp. 203-204 [no seizure occurred when officers boarded the bus and began questioning passengers].)

Rand v. Collins

214 Cal. 168 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1931

In Crowley v. … In People v. Elkus, 59 Cal.

Le Francois v. Goel

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 249 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 2005

(See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, § 9:327.8, p. 9(1)-107.) … Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 19 , 112 Cal.

Flannery v. Prentice

110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 809 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 2001

(d)(1) [“the court may order the board to pay to the applicant’s attorney reasonable attorney’s fees” (italics added)]; Fam. Code, § 272, subd. … (Jeff D., at p. 732, fn. 19 [ 106 S.Ct. at p. 1539 ]; see Jonas v. Stack (11th Cir. 1985) 758 F.2d 567, 570, fn. 7 ; Brown v.

Texas Co. v. County of Los Angeles

52 Cal. 2d 55 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1959

(German Gymnastic Assn. v. City of Louisville, 306 Ky. 810 [ 209 S.W.2d 75, 76 ]; Oklahoma County v. Queen City Lodge No. 197, I.O.O.F., 195 Okla. 131 [ 156 P.2d 340, 358 ]; Board of Equalization v. Tulsa Pythian, etc. … Allen v. Franchise Tax Board, 39 Cal.2d 109 [ 245 P.2d 297 ], and Gartner v. Roth, 26 Cal.2d 184 [ 157 P.2d 361 ], are not to the contrary.

In re Averill's Estate

6 Cal. Unrep. 774 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1901

For these items the court allowed for the former for services $250 and for board $95, aggregating $345, and for the latter $125, and disallowed the balance. … nor is its discretion limited by the fact that there was uncontradicted testimony of witnesses as to their opinions that a larger amount should have been allowed: In re Lux’s Estate, 100 Cal. 593 , 35 Pac. 341 ; Freese v.