Case law

Rutledge v. City of Eureka

195 Cal. 404 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1925

(Chase v. Trout, 146 Cal. 350 [ 80 Pac. 81 ]; Imperial Land, Co. v. Imperial Irr. Dist., 173 Cal. 660 [161 Pac. 113]; Bienfield v. Van Ness, 176 Cal. 585 [169 Pac. 225]; Oakland Pav. Co. v. … It was there held that section 4041b of the Political Code, enacted in 1919, and providing that a county board of supervisors in its discretion should have the power to appoint an advisory board to cooperate with the county

Purser v. Eagle Lake Land & Irrigation Co.

111 Cal. 139 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1896

was unanimously adopted at a special meeting of the board called for the purpose, refers to and identifies the note and mortgage in suit, and certain other notes, and resolves that the execution of said instruments was “ … (Hawley v. Gray etc. Paving Co., 106 Cal. 337 ; Miners’ Bitch Co. v. Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 597 ; Underhill v. Santa Barbara etc. Co., 93 Cal. 300 .) 2.

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 5 v. Public Utilies Commission

61 Cal. 2d 462 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1964

(Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Devlin, 188 Cal. 33, 40 [ 203 P. 1058 ]; Brewer v. Railroad Com., 190 Cal. 60, 77-78 [ 210 P. 511 ]; Southern Pac. Co. v. Railroad Com., 13 Cal.2d 125, 129-130 [ 87 P. 1052 ]; Market St. … It requires notice and a hearing, approval by the board, and in some cases approval at a special election. (Wat. Code, §§ 55800-55901.)

Larrabee v. Town of Cloverdale

131 Cal. 96 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1900

Assn. v. Los Angeles, 103 Cal. 461 . In Conniff v. … Assn. v.

Janss Investment Co. v. Walden

196 Cal. 753 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1925

(Becker v. Spalinger, 174 Wis. 443 [ 183 N. W. 173 ]; Ferguson v. Gooch, 94 Va. 1 [40 L. R. A. 234, 26 S. E. 397 ]; Guthrie v. Huntington Chair Co., 71 W. Va. 383 [ 76 S. E. 795 ] ; Evans v. … Brown, 33 Okl. 323 [ 125 Pac. 469 ]; City of Findlay v. Pertz, 66 Fed. 427 [29 L. R. A. 188, 13 C. C. A. 559 ] ; Black v. Miller, 71 Ill. App. 342 ; People’s Ins. Co. v. Paddon, 8 Ill. App. 447 ; Fish v.

Stephens v. Toomey

51 Cal. 2d 864 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1959

(People v. Williams, 27 Cal.2d 220, 228 [ 163 P.2d 692 ]; People v. Goldstein, 32 Cal. 432, 433 ; 14 Cal.Jur.2d 493.) Robbery of the first degree is punishable by imprisonment in state prison and is an infamous crime. … In Meyer v.

Kistler v. Vasi

71 Cal. 2d 261 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1969

The facts thus parallel those in Bargioni v. … (See also Brown v. Jensen (1953) 41 Cal.2d 193, 197-198 [ 259 P.2d 425 ].) *263 After the Bargioni ease was decided, the Legislature amended section 580b.

Freire v. Matson Navigation Co.

19 Cal. 2d 8 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1941

Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., supra, p. 301.) In Judson Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Acc. … In Cudahy Packing Co. v.

Ex parte Hayes

20 L.R.A. 701 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1893

The Court This is a proceeding upon habeas corpus, and the question involved is, whether it is competent for the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco to provide by ordinance that it shall be unlawful … underlie and support legislation of this character were announced by this court in Ex parte Christensen, 85 Cal. 208 , and also received an exhaustive discussion by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Crowley v.

Broadway Improvement & Investment Co. v. Tumansky

2 Cal. 2d 465 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1935

Corp. v. Mortgage Guar. Co., 129 Cal. App. 468 [ 18 Pac. (2d) 993 ], and Dauch v. … In the case of Dauch v.

People v. Sherman

3 Cal. Unrep. 851 · California Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1893

When the prosecution rested, the defendant called as a witness Esther Brown, who testified that she had been in the county jail, and that “Miss Prank’s room and mine were right alongside.” … The court had a right, therefore, to make the amendments, and its action cannot be complained of: People v. Dodge, 30 Cal. 448 ; People v. Hall, 94 Cal. 595 , 30 Pac. 7 .

Adams v. Sharp

61 Cal. 2d 775 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1964

Co. v. Ocean View Estates, Inc. 169 Cal.App.2d 235, 241 [ 337 P.2d 146 ].) … There is nothing in In re Brown, 80 Cal. 381 [ 22 P. 233 ], or Estate of Kelley, 182 Cal. 81 [ 186 P. 1041 ], contrary to the above stated rules.

Denninger v. Recorder's Court of Pomona

145 Cal. 629 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1904

doctrine of this court is, that all constitutional provisions are self-executing when they can be given reasonable effect without the aid of legislation, unless it clearly appears that such was not the intention (Winchester v. … Subdivision 16 of section 764 of the Municipal Corporation Act empowers the board of trustees in cities of the fifth class to impose fines, penalties, and forfeitures, for any and all violations of ordinances, etc.

Connolly v. County of Orange

1 Cal. 4th 1105 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1992

(See Webster v. Board of Regents (1912) 163 Cal. 705 [ 126 P. 974 ]; Henne v. Los Angeles County (1900) 129 Cal. 297 [ 61 P. 1081 ]; People v. Board of Supervisors (1888) 77 Cal. 136 , 19 P. 257 ; Hollister v. … (Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 228, 242 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 101 ]. See also People v.

Woods Lumber Co. v. Moore

183 Cal. 497 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1920

Synd. v. Enterprise B. Co., supra; Winterfield v. Cream City B. Co., supra; Timm v. Grand Rapids B. Co., supra; Kraft v. Brewery Co., supra; Blue Island B. Co. v. Fraatz, supra; Holm v. Lipsius B. Co., 21 App. … A brewing company could not erect a building for a boarding-house and saloon for rent, in order that the saloon-keeper might buy its beer. (United States B. Co. v. Dolese, 259 Ill. 274 , [47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 898, 102 N.

People v. Ervine

47 Cal. 4th 745 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 2009

Aldridge put on his uniform — dark brown slacks and a khaki-colored shirt with Lassen County Sheriff’s Department patches on each shoulder, dark brown epaulets, dark brown pocket covers, and a badge on the upper left chest … (People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 400 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ].)

Kennedy v. Chase

119 Cal. 637 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1898

(Wright v. Rawson, 52 Iowa, 329 ; 35 Am. Rep. 275 ; Pfeiffer v. Ringler, 12 Daly, 437 .) The same doctrine is recognized in Kauffman v. Maier, 94 Cal. 269, 278 . … Dec. 660 ; Murray v. McLean, 57 Ill. 378 ; Schmidt v. Bauer, 80 Cal. 565 .)

People v. Shockley

58 Cal. 4th 400 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 2013

(People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 737; People v. Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 117; People v. Pendleton (1979) 25 Cal.3d 371, 382; People v. Marshall (1957) 48 Cal.2d 394, 398; People v. … Brown, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P.

Brennan v. Brennan

122 Cal. 440 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1893

the same ground denied that the whole or any part thereof had not been paid, but averred upon information and belief that the sum of six hundred dollars thereof had been paid in coin, and the sum of two hundred dollars in board … (Frisch v. Caler, 21 Cal. 71 , and Farmers etc. Bank. v. Christensen, 51 Cal. 571 .) The possession of the attorney for plaintiff was the possession of plaintiff. The judgment is affirmed.

Griffith Co. v. County of Los Angeles

4 Cal. 2d 222 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1935

The facts and issues in this proceeding are substantially similar to those presented in Southern California Roads Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo, L. A. No. 15142 (ante, p. 220 [ 48 Pac. (2d) 34 ]), and Sawyer v. … As we pointed out in Southern California Roads Co. v.