Case law

McNeese v. McNeese

190 Cal. 402 · California Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1923

(Loaiza v. Superior Court, 85 Cal. 11 [ 20 Am. St. Rep. 197 , 9 L. R. A. 376, 24 Pac. 707 ] ; Kelley v. Owens, 120 Cal. 502 [ 47 Pac. 369 , 52 Pac. 797 ]; More v. … Schiappa-Pietra et al., 151 Cal. 732 [ 91 Pac. 593 ]; Spreckels v. Gorrill, 152 Cal. 383 [ 92 Pac. 1011 ]; Bray v. Lowery, 163 Cal. 256 [ 124 Pac. 1004 ]; *405 Brown v. Domestic Utilities Mfg.

Brewster v. Hartley

37 Cal. 15 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

In Wilson v. … V.

People v. Wade

53 Cal. 2d 322 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1959

Code, § 189; People v. Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577, 591 [ 320 P.2d 5 ], and cases cited therein, in note 3.) … In People v.

People v. Yartz

36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 328 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 2005

Based on this conviction, the state Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) revoked Cartwright's license to practice because the Board concluded the conviction constituted a "conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude … Board of Chiropractic Examiners (1976) 16 Cal.3d 762, 773, fn. 7 , 129 Cal.Rptr. 462 , 548 P.2d 1134 ( Cartwright ), quoting North Carolina v.

People v. Elliot

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 759 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2005

Section 190.3, factor (a), as applied, does not result in the arbitrary and capricious imposition of death. ( People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 401 , 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ; People v. … Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 401-402, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 126, fn. 32 , 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271 , 65 P.3d 749 ; People v.

People ex rel. Danielwitz v. Harvey

58 Cal. 337 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

(Barton v. Kalloch, 7,414; People v. Ransome, 7,614; Wood v. Board of Election Commissioners, 7,774.) Judgment reversed. Myrick, J„ dissented.

Moore v. Lent

81 Cal. 502 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1889

All of the acts prohibited by the statute are voluntary acts of the members of the board of directors. … In Irvine v. McKeon, 23 Cal. 474 , it was said: “ This statute provides for making one person individually liable for the debts of another, and prescribes how and under what circumstances he shall beheld thusliable.

Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn.

8 Cal. 4th 361 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1994

of the condominium owners association or the board’s interpretation of a rule. … (See Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 443 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 574 , 111 P.2d 610 ]; Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v.

Agudo v. County of Monterey

13 Cal. 2d 285 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1939

(County of Allegheny v. Gibson, 90 Pa. St. 397 [ 35 Am. Rep. 670 ]; Febock v. Jefferson County, 219 Wis. 154 [ 262 N. W. 588 ]; Yalcnezian v. Boston, 238 Mass. 538 [ 131 N. E. 220 ] ; Barnes v. Chicago, 255 Ill. … (Moss v. Smith, supra, p. 784 .)

Jeffers v. Cook

58 Cal. 147 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

Grimes, Richard Gleason, George Strinchfield, and Richard Brown, and they, having recorded their deed on the day of its execution, subsequently, to wit, June 16, 1879, conveyed the premises by deed to E. J. … Fowler, id. 561 ; Ketchum v. Crippen, 37 id. 225, and Aldrich v. Stephens, 49 id. 677.

Levy v. Cohen

19 Cal. 3d 165 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1977

(See Chicot County Dist. v. Bank (1940) 308 U.S. 371 [ 84 L.Ed. 329 , 60 S.Ct. 317 ]; Stoll v. Gottlieb, supra, 305 U.S. 165 ; Brown v. United States (3d Cir. 1974) 508 F.2d 618, 630-631 ; Miller v. … (Brown v. United States, supra, 508 F.2d at p. 631 .)

Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

204 Cal. 427 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1928

(Peterson v. Industrial Acc. Com., 188 Cal. 15 [ 204 Pac. 390 ].) Petitioner further claims that Mrs. … (Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 202 Cal. 521 [ 261 Pac. 987 ].) It should, therefore, be annulled. The award, excepting that portion thereof calling for interest, is affirmed.

Walsh v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

59 Cal. 2d 757 · California Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1963

The Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board unanimously affirmed the decision of the department. … In Vanoli v.

Paine v. State Bar

14 Cal. 2d 150 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1939

PAINE, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. S. F. No. 16097. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. August 7, 1939. Harry J. Bias, W. A. Deans and Bert B. Snyder for Petitioner. J. E. … The committee concluded that he was guilty of professional misconduct and recommended a 'public reproval' by the board of governors.

People v. Jones

54 Cal. 4th 350 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2012

It is instructive to compare the reasoning in People v. Coltrin (1936) 5 Cal.2d 649 [ 55 P.2d 1161 ] with the reasoning of People v. Brown (1958) 49 Cal.2d 577 [ 320 P.2d 5 ] {Brown), which overruled Coltrin . … (People v.

Stevenson v. Bennett

35 Cal. 424 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

It was held in Estrada v. … In the subsequent case of Minturn v.

Hannah v. Green

143 Cal. 19 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1904

(Hisch v. Mayhew, 51 Cal. 514 ; Wilson v. His Creditors, 55 Cal. 476 ; Dean v. Grimes, 72 Cal. 442 .) There is no merit in the point that the citation was not properly served. … J., in Convery v. Conger, 53 N. J. L. 476, which was afterwards adopted by the court in the same ease at page 658 of said volume.)

Cunha v. Superior Court

2 Cal. 3d 352 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1970

People v. Sanders, 46 Cal.2d 247 [ 294 P.2d 10 ].) People v. Towner, 259 Cal. App.2d 682 [ 66 Cal. Rptr. 559 ]; People v. Garcia, 171 Cal. App.2d 757 [ 341 P.2d 351 ]; People v. Brown, 147 Cal. … (See People v. Towner, 259 Cal. App.2d 682, 684 [ 66 Cal. Rptr. 559 ]; People v. Brown, 147 Cal. App.2d 352, 356 [ 305 P.2d 126 ].)

Blake v. City of Eureka

201 Cal. 643 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1927

In the case of Beale v. … rights upon them nor did it impose any duty upon the board of trustees.”

People v. Hagar

66 Cal. 59 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1884

Ho. 108, v. Hagar, No. 8,827, ante. Two points, however, not involved there are for consideration here. *60 1. … The board of supervisors, in hearing the petition for the formation of the district, and in making the order, had jurisdiction to determine what lands were to be benefited by the proposed system of reclamation, and to include