Case law

Bryant v. Blevins

9 Cal. 4th 47 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1994

(Brown, Boundary Control and Legal Principles, op. cit. supra, at p. 1; see Killian v. Hill (1990) 32 Ark.App. 25 [ 795 S.W.2d 369, 370 ] [“Surveying has been described both as an art . . . and as a science, . . .”].) … .]; Kunza v.

Norman v. Norman

121 Cal. 620 · California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1898

Chief Justice Gray, in Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458 , 18 Am. … In the case of Holmes v. Holmes, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 525, the question was whether a marriage had been contracted under the laws of California or Oregon.

Chavez v. Sargent

52 Cal. 2d 162 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 1959

Utah Labor Relations Board (1957), 353 U.S. 1 [ 77 S.Ct. 598, 609 , 1 L.Ed.2d 601 ], and Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc. (1957), 353 U.S. 20, 23 [ 77 S.Ct. 604, 609 , 1 L.Ed.2d 613 ]. … Co. v. Wisconsin etc. Board (1948), 336 U.S. 301, 314 [ 69 S.Ct. 584 , 93 L.Ed. 691 ].) The terms did not always have those clearly distinguished meanings (e.g., Funk & Wagnalls New Stand.

Shear Development Co., LLC v. Cal. Coastal Com.

California Supreme Court · May 14, 2026

Shear appealed that decision to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors (Board). … The Board found that “[t]he capacities of available water supply and sewage disposal 8  SHEAR DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC v.

Estate of Steehler

197 Cal. 67 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1925

The case of Peterson v. Civil Service Board, 68 Cal. App. 752 [ 230 Pac. 196 ], was a case to which the rule of this court upon the subject of costs was properly applicable. … Co. v. Stevinson, 165 Cal. 540 [ 132 Pac. 1021 ], is directly in point, and points out the procedure to be followed in such eases by this court. The motion is granted.

Tuttle v. Crawford

8 Cal. 2d 126 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1936

Brown and Harold C. Brown, as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Respondents. SEAWELL, J. Plaintiffs are husband and wife. Plaintiff Mary V. Tuttle is a woman in middle life and the mother of three children. … (Brown v. Holzwasser, 108 Cal.App. 483 [ 291 P. 661 ]; Schmidt v. Bauer, 80 Cal. 565 [ 22 P. 256 , 5 L.R.A. 580 ]; Hodge v. Weinstock, Lubin & Co., 109 Cal.App. 393 [ 293 P. 80 ]; Hook v.

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.

Deady v.Townsend

57 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

In the case of Emery v. San Francisco Gas Com pany, 28 Cal. 376 , the notice of intention was to “ grade and macadamize,” and this was held a sufficient description of the work; and in the case of Harney v. … It is evident, however, that the law did not require the description to contain a plan and specifications; for, at a later stage in the proceedings, the board was authorized to call upon the superintendent of streets to furnish

Spaulding v. Bradley

79 Cal. 449 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1889

(Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 647 ; San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 542 ; Quinn v. Anderson, 70 Cal. 454 ; Hope V. Barnett, 78 Cal. 9 .) … V.

Tuttle v. Crawford

8 Cal. 2d 126 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1936

Brown and Harold C. Brown, as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Respondents. SEAWELL, J. Plaintiffs are husband and wife. Plaintiff Mary V. Tuttle is a woman in middle life and the mother of three children. … (Brown v. Holzwasser, 108 Cal.App. 483 [ 291 P. 661 ]; Schmidt v. Bauer, 80 Cal. 565 [ 22 P. 256 , 5 L.R.A. 580 ]; Hodge v. Weinstock, Lubin & Co., 109 Cal.App. 393 [ 293 P. 80 ]; Hook v.

Eli v. Murphy

39 Cal. 2d 598 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1952

(Venuto v. Robinson, 118 F.2d 679, 682-683 ; War Emergency Co-op. Ass’n v. Widenhouse, 169 F.2d 403, 406-407 ; Cotton v. Ship-By-Truck Co., 337 Mo. 270 [ 85 S.W.2d 80, 84 ] ; see, also, Brown v. L. H. … (Liberty Highway Co., v. Callaban, 24 Ohio App. 374 [ 157 N.E. 708, 711 ]; Stickel v. Erie Motor Freight, Inc., 54 Ohio App. 74 [ 6 N.E.2d 15,17 ]; see, also, Taylor v.

Simmons v. State Bar

2 Cal. 3d 719 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1970

(Stephens v. State Bar, 19 Cal.2d 580, 582-583 [ 122 P.2d 549 ]; Bruns v. State Bar, 18 Cal.2d 667, 672 [3] [ 117 P.2d 327 ]; see also Rock v. … State Bar, supra, 65 Cal.2d 281 ; Simmons v. State Bar, supra, 70 Cal. 2d 361 .) In the last proceeding, the initial recommendation, made by former Disciplinary Board I, was for disbarment.

Sorensen v. Hall

219 Cal. 680 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1934

Eckstein, 22 Cal. 580, 591 ; Carey v. Brown, 62 Cal. 373, 375 ; Jose Realty Co. v. Pavlicevich, 164 Cal. 613, 617 [ 130 Pac. 15 ] ; Roberts v. Colyear, 179 Cal. 669 [ 180 Pac. 937 ].) … App. 345, 347 [ 265 Pac. 860 ], Kelsey v. Richardson, 101 Cal. App. 762, 768 [ 282 Pac. 515 ], and Ley v. Babcock, 118 Cal. App. 525 [ 5 Pac. (2d) 620 ].

People v. Bankston

California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2026

(Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 544, fn. 17; see People v. … Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 890 (conc. & dis. opn. of Cuéllar, J.)

Gabriel v. Tonner

138 Cal. 63 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1902

The differences in the language and effect of the two acts are clearly pointed out by the supreme court of the United States in Wilson v. Nelson, 183 U. S. 191 . … Rep. 943, section 1 of the act seems to have been overlooked, and these cases should be disregarded, as indeed they have been by the supreme court of Massachusetts in the very recent case of Brown v. Case, 61 N. E.

Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 331 · California Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2005

(See Grimsley v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 960, 966-967 , 213 Cal.Rptr. 108 .) … WE CONCUR: BAXTER and BROWN, JJ.

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.

People, ex rel. Packard v. Supervisors of Santa Barbara County

14 Cal. 102 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

It is not necessary to decide the question of the constitutionality of the 20th Section of the Act creating a Board of Supervisors, (Wood’s Digest, 694,) though it is difficult to see how it conflicts with the Constitution … (See Attorney-General v. Squires, ante.) Judgment 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.

In Re Giannini

69 Cal. 2d 563 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1968

(Dunn v. Maryland State Board of Censors (1965) 240 Md. 249, 257 [ 213 A.2d 751 ]; United States v. … (Compare Brown v. Louisiana (1966) 383 U.S. 131 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 637 , 86 S.Ct. 719 ] (opinion of Fortas, J.) with Cox v. Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 559 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 487 , 85 S.Ct. 476 ], and Adderley v.