Case law

Damico v. Damico

7 Cal. 4th 673 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1994

Patterson (1978) 2 Kan.App.2d 447 [ 581 P.2d 824 ]; Brown v. Turnbloom (1979) 89 Mich.App. 162 [ 280 N.W.2d 473 ]; State ex rel. Southwell v. Chamberland (Minn. 1985) 361 N.W.2d 814 ; England v. … Lohman (1989) 229 N.J.Super. 485 [ 551 A.2d 1051 ]; Cahn v. Cahn (1982) 117 Misc.2d 1054 [ 459 N.Y.S.2d 657 ]; Pifer v. Pifer (1976) 31 N.C.App. 486 [ 229 S.E.2d 700 ]; Brown v.

People v. Jennings

46 Cal. 3d 963 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1988

In People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 544 , footnote 7, and People v. … Allen, supra, 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1276-1277 ; People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 541 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], revd. California v.

Sheehan v. Osborn

138 Cal. 512 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1903

(Poirier v. Gravel, 88 Cal. 79 ; Reay v. Butler, 95 Cal. 206 ; Priest v. Brown, 100 Cal. 627 .)

De Toro v. Robinson

91 Cal. 371 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1891

(King v. Montgomery, 50 Cal. 115 : Kelley v. Kriess, 68 Cal. 210 .) … This is a familiar principle, and the following are a few of many cases which might be cited to support it: Burrell v. Haw, 40 Cal. 376 ; Durfee v. Plaisted, 38 Cal. 80 ; Houck v. Kelsey, 17 Kan. 333 ; Bohall v.

McQuiddy v. Worswick Street Paving Co.

160 Cal. 9 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1911

added only for the purpose of emphasizing the importance of limiting more carefully than has been done in some of the cases followed by the superior court, the application of the principle established by the decision in Brown … v.

Dana & Brother v. City of San Francisco

19 Cal. 486 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

This seems to be decided by the case of The People v. Supervisors of El Dorado County ( 11 Cal. 170 ). … The reason is, that *491 the Auditor had no authority to draw a bill of exchange, but he can only, in certain cases, issue warrants upon the order of the Supervisors, or the allowance by the Board of an account, which is

Jenne v. Burger

120 Cal. 444 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1898

(Hawley v. Bader, 15 Cal. 45 ; Jackson v. Sacramento etc. R. R. Co., 23 Cal. 268 ; 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1115.) … (Griffith v. Grogan, 12 Cal. 317 ; Smith v. Owens, 21 Cal. 11 ; Welch v. Allington, 23 Cal. 322 ; Brown v. Olmsted, 50 Cal. 162 ; Comptoir D'Escompte v. Dresbach, 78 Cal. 15 .)

Welsh v. Bardshar

137 Cal. 154 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1902

(Gilman v. Cosgrove, 22 Cal. 358 ; Pfister v. Wade, 69 Cal. 133 ; Schneider v. Brown, 85 Cal. 206 .)

Keaton v. Mun. Court of L.A.

209 Cal. 52 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1930

Respondent contends that the Hansen case was erroneously decided and in support of its contention cites the following decisions of this court: Hill v. Finnigan, 54 Cal. 311 ; Brown v. … Plummer, 70 Cal. 337 [ 11 Pac. 631 ] ; Tompkins v. Montgomery, 116 Cal. 120 [ 47 Pac. 1006 ] ; People v. Bank of San Luis Obispo, 152 Cal. 261 [ 92 Pac. 481 ].

Globe Cotton Oil Mills v. Zellerbach

200 Cal. 276 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1927

In assuming this position the respondent relies upon Van Camp Sea Food Co. v. Fish & Game Com., 75 Cal. … App. 764 [ 243 Pac. 702 ], in which it was held that a Commission like the Fish and Game Commission, which is one having a state-wide jurisdiction, as distinguished from a local board, cannot be invested with judicial functions

Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund

24 Cal. 800 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 2001

Opinion BROWN, J. This case contains a new twist on the seemingly endless litigation over the scope of workers’ compensation exclusivity. … (Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters (1946) 29 Cal.2d 34, 44 [ 172 P.2d 867 ] (Speegle).)

Keller v. Chapman

34 Cal. 635 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

(Saunders v. Haynes, 13 Cal. 150 ; Whitney v. Board of Delegates, 14 Cal. 503 ; Searcy v. Grow, 15 Cal. 117 ; Dorsey v. Barry, 24 Cal. 449; Gasgrove v. Howland, 24 Cal. 457 .) … In Dorsey v.

Levitzky v. Canning

33 Cal. 299 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1867

VI, Sec. 17; Miller v. Stewart, 24 Cal. 504 ; People v. … (Seaman v. Browning, 1 Leon. 157.)

Abraham v. State Bar

17 Cal. 2d 625 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1941

This is a proceeding to review the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the State Bar that the petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty days. … The Board of Governors recommended suspension for a period of thirty days. *627 In support of the recommendation of the Board of Governors, the attorney for the State Bar relies on the decision of this court in Hill v.

City of Fresno v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.

98 Cal. 179 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1893

(See also People v. Stephens, 62 Cal. 209 ; McCrary v. Beaudry, 67 Cal. 120 ; County of Fresno v. Canal Co., 68 Cal. 359 .) … In Shepard v.

Complete Service Bureau v. San Diego County Medical Society

43 Cal. 2d 201 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1954

Co. v. … (See Accounting Corp. v. State Board of Accountancy, 34 Cal.2d 186 [ 208 P.2d 984 ].) In Maloney v.

People v. Stewart

211 Cal. 79 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1930

. \ The appeal of the other five defendants was denied on April 30, 1929, and discussion of that cause is found in People v. … Brown, 207 Cal. 172 [ 277 Pac. 320 ], The crime of which these defendants were convicted was murder growing out of an armed prison revolt which occurred at Folsom on Thanksgiving Day (November 24), 1927.

Woerner v. Woerner

171 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1915

In Forrester v. … In Edwards v.

Copper Hill Mining Co. v. Spencer

25 Cal. 18 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

Brown will serve to express in the language of the witnesses all that was said in regard to the transfer of the title to the plaintiff: “ I surrendered all my interests and those I was representing in and to said claim to … The appellant claims that under the decision in Table Mountain Tunnel Company v. Stranahan, 20 Cal. 198 , the evidence establishes a title sufficient to authorize a recovery.

In Re Blois

179 Cal. 291 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1918

(South Pasadena v. South Pasadena Canal Co., 152 Cal. 579 , [ 93 Pac. 490 ].) … (Willson v. Boise City, 6 Idaho, 391 , [ 55 Pac. 887 ].)