Case law

Brown v. Griffith

70 Cal. 14 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1886

Canfield v. Thompson, 49 Cal. 210 , was decided on facts occurring before section 1951 was adopted.

Brown v. Spencer

163 Cal. 589 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1912

The plaintiffs are Thomas Brown, David Brown, and Hochheimer & Co., a corporation. The transactions upon which the alleged trust arose occurred in 1901. At that time Hochheimer & Co., was a partnership. … (Campbell v. Freeman, 99 Cal 546, [ 34 Pac. 113 ] ; Hidden v. Jordan, 21 Cal. 99 ; Millard v. Hathaway, 27 Cal. 139 ; Sandfoss v. Jones, 35 Cal. 486 ; Walton v. Karnes, 67 Cal. 255 , [ 7 Pac. 676 ] ; Ward v.

Godfrey v. Brown

220 Cal. 57 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1934

Rep. 171 ]; Holt v. Yellow Cab Co., 124 Cal. App. 385 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 472 ]; Sloan v. Original Stage Line Inc., 124 Cal. App. 317 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 465 ]; Kilgore v. Brown, 90 Cal. App. 555 [ 266 Pac. 297 ] ; Burke v. … App. 304 [ 290 Pac. 497 ]; Brown v. Davis, 84 Cal. App. 180 [ 257 Pac. 877 ].)

Silver v. Brown

63 Cal. 2d 270 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1965

Rptr. 308 PHILL SILVER et al., Petitioners, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, as Governor, etc., et al., Respondents; THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Interveners. PHILIP ADAMS et al., Petitioners, v. EDMUND G. … Co. v. State Board of Equal., ante, p. 222 [ 45 Cal. Rptr. 869 , 404 P.2d 477 ]; County of Los Angeles v. Jessup, 11 Cal.2d 273, 279 [ 78 P.2d 1131 ].)

Brown v. Orr

29 Cal. 120 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

(Maclay v. Love, 25 Cal. 367 .) It is simply the note of her deceased husband, William H. Orr, and against him no breach of the contract declared on is alleged. … (Fallon v. Butter, 21 Cal. 24; Willis v. Farley, 24 Cal. 49 0; In the Matter of the Estate of William H. Orr, deceased, ante, 101.) Judgment affirmed.

Flores v. Brown

39 Cal. 2d 622 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1952

If Brown was hauling the trailer as a mere favor to Murray, or as an independent contractor, negligence may not be imputed. (Edwards v. Freeman, 34 Cal.2d 589, 592 [ 212 P.2d 883 ] ; Malloy v. … (Edwards v. Freemam, supra, and cases cited; Malloy v. Fong, supra, and cases cited.) Accordingly, it is unnecessary to decide whether the jury could reasonably infer that Brown was not acting gratuitously.

People v. Brown

47 Cal. 447 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

Woodward v. Brown

119 Cal. 283 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1897

On that day the title still remained in Brown. The Dorn deed was recorded January 23d, while'the John Brown Colony deed was recorded January 26th. … But it does not apply to the John Brown Colony deed as respects the other blocks and lots conveyed to that corporation.

Brown v. Rouse

104 Cal. 672 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1894

(Brown v. Rouse, 93 Cal. 237 .) The original complaint alleged these facts: On November 18, 1887, the defendant, Charlotte Bouse, a married woman, by her alleged attorney in fact, G. M. … (Brown v. Rouse, 93 Cal. 287 .)

Brown v. Lattimore

17 Cal. 93 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

The case of The People v. Aikenhead ( 5 Cal. 106 ) is similar in principle, and sustains the conclusions at which we have arrived. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Brown v. Colm

11 Cal. 3d 639 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1974

(Healy v. Visalia etc. R. R. Co. (1894) 101 Cal. 585, 591-592 [ 36 P. 125 ]; Hope v. Arrowhead & Puritas Waters, Inc. (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 222, 230 [ 344 P.2d 428 ]; Brown v. … (Sinz v. Owens, supra, 33 Cal.2d 749, 756 .)

Wilson v. Brown

5 Cal. 2d 425 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1936

The lease, entered into between Samuel Brown and his wife, as lessors, and Walter R. … As was said in Hale v. Harbor Petroleum Corp., 139 Cal.

Schneider v. Brown

85 Cal. 205 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1890

(Dominguez v. Dominguez, 7 Cal. 426 ; Sweetser v. Dobbins, 65 Cal. 531 .) The original complaint was superseded by an amended complaint, and all questions as to the sufficiency of the former drop out of the case. … The case of Waldron v.

People v. Brown

113 Cal. 35 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1896

(Ex parte Rosenheim, 83 Cal. 388 ; People v. Hamberg, 84 Cal. 475 ; Lowrey v. Hogue, 85 Cal. 602 .)

Brown v. Kentfield

50 Cal. 129 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

(Payne and Dewey v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 220 ; Hicks v. Coleman, 25 Id. 146; McCreery v. Everding, 44 Id. 249.) 3.

People v. Brown

22 Cal. 2d 752 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1943

In People v. … (People v. Bartol, supra, 665 ; see, also, Nichols v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co., 178 Cal. 630, 632 [ 174 P. 319 ]; Juchert v. Tenent, 126 Cal.App. 216, 217 [ 14 P.2d 617 ]; Houghton v.

Brown v. Clark

89 Cal. 196 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1891

Brown brought an action of ejectment against the defendant Clark and his tenant for the possession of a lot of ground in the city and county of San Francisco. … On the 1st of April, 1878, the plaintiff, Brown, was the owner of the land.

Flanagan v. Brown

70 Cal. 254 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1886

blank, and sues upon it in behalf of his principal, it is no defense for the maker to say that the plaintiff in the suit is not the owner, and this, as I understand it, is all that is really decided in the case of Curtiss v. … If his interest is only a right to share the proceeds which result from the execution of his power, the agent has not a power coupled with an interest. “ The case of Brown v.

Brown v. Regan

10 Cal. 2d 519 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1938

In view of the verdict, “in favor of the plaintiff Lansing Brown, and against defendant, Wm. Regan”, it is obvious that this is so. … (Benson v. Southern Pac. Co., 177 Cal. 777 [ 171 Pac. 948 ]; Ambrose v. Allen, 113 Cal. App. 107 [ 298 Pac. 169 ]; Harker v. Southern California Edison Co., 83 Cal. App. 204 [ 256 Pac. 848 ]; Mitchell v.

People v. Brown

6 Cal. 4th 322 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1993

(People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ] [Brown I].) … (California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 543 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934, 941 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ].)