Case law

Shade v. Bay Counties Power Co.

152 Cal. 10 · California Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1907

(Studer v. Southern Pacific Co., 121 Cal. 400 , [ 66 Am. St. Rep. 39 , 53 Pac. 942 ].) … (See, also, Flemming v. Western Pacific R. R. Co., 49 Cal. 253 .)

In re Champion

California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2014

(See People v. … (See People v.

L. B. Price Mercantile Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

49 Cal. 2d 13 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 1957

Code, § 3202; Smith v. Industrial Acc. Com., 44 Cal.2d 364 [ 282 P.2d 64 ].) Furthermore, the construction which we have placed upon section 4702 finds abundant support in its legislative history. … It seems entirely clear that this earliest forerunner gave the board discretion to “otherwise direct” both as to the amounts and times of payments of such installments.

Signer v. State Bar

13 Cal. 2d 151 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1939

Nair, during the time I had authority to draw upon same, the sum of $419.10 belonging to the Estate of Marrón; the sum of $100 received by me in the case of Hinton v. Walker from the office of William H. … The findings of fact made by the local administrative committee were approved and adopted as the findings of fact of the board of governors.

People v. Lance W.

37 Cal. 3d 873 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1985

Brown, supra, 32 Cal.3d 236, 252-253 , but see pp. 262-299), it remains speculative to rely on “voter intent” as it relates to any one provision. … Solario (1977) 19 Cal.3d 760, 764 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 725 , 566 P.2d 627 ]; Pating v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 608, 616-617 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 20 ]; People v.

Canon v. Justice Court

61 Cal. 2d 446 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1964

(Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, supra, 367 U.S. 1, 97 [ 81 S.Ct. 1357 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 625, 689-690 ].) In Communist Party , the cases of N.A.A.C.P. v. … (Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, supra, 367 U.S. at p. 101 [ 81 S.Ct. 1357 , 6 L.Ed.2d. 625, at p. 692].)

People v. Benson

52 Cal. 380 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

material facts tending to establish the guilt of the defendant; and on his cross-examination, counsel for the defense propounded to him the following question: “ State whether or not you know of any reward being offered by the Board … Justice Baldwin, in delivering the opinion of the Court in People v. Williams, 18 Cal. 193 , and which are quoted with approbation in People v. Devine, 44 Cal. 460 .

Southern California Roads Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo

4 Cal. 2d 220 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1935

This case comes squarely within the holding of the following recent decisions of this court: American Co. v. City of Lakeport, 220 Cal. 548 [ 32 Pac. (2d) 622 ]; American Securities Co. v. … (American Co. v. City of Lakeport, supra.)

Cottle v. City of Los Angeles

5 Cal. 2d 140 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1935

Second: It claims that because the plaintiffs filed their claim for damages with the city council instead of with the board of public works the plaintiffs are precluded from recovering in this action. … (Musto-Keenan Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 139 Cal. App. 506 [ 34 Pac. (2d) 506 ].)

Love v. Shartzer

31 Cal. 487 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

The cases of Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 621 ; Cornwall v. Culver, 16 Cal. 629 ; Mahoney v. Van Wink *494 le, 21 Cal. 577 ; and Thornton v. Mahoney, 24 Cal. 579, 580 ; are decisive of the question. … (Bay v. Pope, 18 Cal. 694 .)

People v. Ellenwood

119 Cal. 166 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1897

(People v. Bryon, 103 Cal. 677 .) … (People v. Frank, 28 Cal. 513 ; People v. Harrold, 84 Cal. 567 ; People v. Gusti, 113 Cal. 179 .) Several parts of the instructions given to the jury are urged as grounds for reversal.

People v. Carr

8 Cal. 3d 287 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1972

He opened it. crawled under the house, and found one board which was much newer than the others. Upon lifting the board he discovered a hammer covered with blood and hair. … Hall then testified that he opened a gate-type door leading under the house, entered a crawl-space, found a board which looked newer than others piled inside, lifted the board and found the hammer in question.

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.)

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.

McCormick v. Sutton

78 Cal. 232 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1889

Without stopping to discuss the question whether the patent of the United States to Hughes, president of the board of trustees of the city of Sonora, the deed of said board to Dan McCormick, and the decree of the probate … never conveyed to Richards and Pereira any part of the lands in controversy,—any part of the surface thereof, but simply the right to mine beneath the surface; that she had no notice of the pendency of the suit of Sutton v.

West Glendale Methodist Episcopal Church v. McClellan

204 Cal. 697 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1928

the district attorney had consented, in writing, that the petition for cancellation of the tax be granted, and that this petition was presented to the supervisors and to the auditor and “that at all times since the said board … (First Methodist Episcopal Church of Santa Monica v. County of Los Angeles; ante, p. 201 [ 267 Pac. 703 ].)

Davie's v. Torrance

188 Cal. 179 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1922

March 30, 1917, by each plaintiff to the bank. [1] If the plaintiffs were sureties for the corporation, then the indebtedness of the corporation to them accrued at the time they paid the note, to wit, March 30, 1917 {Yule v. … Bishop, 133 Cal. 574 [ 62 Pac. 68 , 65 Pac. 1094 ]; Coulter Dry Goods Co. v. Wentworth, 171 Cal. 500 [ 153 Pac. 939 ]).

Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto

57 Cal. 4th 1193 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 2013

(Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, supra, at p. 241.) … (See Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 241.)

Marchetti v. Payne

197 Cal. 519 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1925

The main question presented by this application is, we think, sufficiently answered by our decision in the case of Bakkenson v. … It further follows that the action of the board of supervisors of the county of Los Angeles taken in the passing and immediate putting into effect of the ordinances above referred to or either of them is an immaterial factor

Estate of Schloss

56 Cal. 2d 248 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1961

(Scott on Trusts, 2d ed., § 391, p. 2753; see Brown v. Memorial Nat. Home Foundation, 162 Cal. App.2d 513, 536 [ 329 P.2d 118 , 75 A.L.R.2d 427 ].) [11] In Pratt v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, 15 Cal. … (See Brown v. Memorial Nat. Home Foundation, supra, 162 Cal.