Case law

Mandel v. Myers

29 Cal. 3d 531 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1981

This court’s decision in State Board of Education v. Levit (1959) 52 Cal.2d 441 [ 343 P.2d 8 ] illustrates the point. … (See, e.g., Newland v. Board of Governors (1-977) 19 Cal.3d 705, 711-713 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 566 P.2d 254 ].)

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.

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 ].

Pauly v. Murray

110 Cal. 13 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1895

The authorities referred to by the chief justice, so far as reported, are McNaught v. McClaughry, 42 N. Y. 22 , 1 Am. Rep. 487 , and Harrington v. Brown, 77 N. Y. 72 . … To this precise point is the case of Moies v. Bird, 11 Mass. 436 , *18 6 Am. Dec. 179 , recognized and affirmed in Hawkes v. Phillips, 7 Gray, 284 ; Lovering v. Fogg, 18 Pick. 540 ; Leonard v. Wildes, 36 Me. 265 .

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.

Evangelatos v. Superior Court

44 Cal. 3d 1188 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1988

(See, e.g., Fox v. Alexis (1985) 38 Cal.3d 621, 637 [ 214 Cal. Rptr. 132 , 699 P.2d 309 ]; White v. Western Title Co., supra, 40 Cal.3d 870, 884 ; Hoffman v. Board of Retirement (1986) 42 Cal.3d 590, 593 [ 229 Cal. … Board of Retirement (1986) 42 Cal.3d 590, 593 [ 229 Cal.

Weil v. Barthel

45 Cal. 2d 835 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1955

We said in Wolfsen v. … (Estate of Fulton, 8 Cal.App.2d 423 [ 48 P.2d 120 ]; Brown v. Brown, 83 Cal.App. 74 [ 256 P. 595 ] ; Ralphs v. Hensler, 97 Cal. 296 [ 32 P. 243 ].)

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.

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.

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.

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 .)

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.)

Simoneau v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.

166 Cal. 264 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1913

(Siemers v. Isen, 54 Cal. 418 ; Driscoll v. Cable Ry. Co., 97 Cal. 553 , [ 33 Am. St. Rep. 203 , 32 P. 591 ]; McCune v. Santa Clara M. L. Co., 110 Cal. 480 , [ 42 P. 980 ]; Stein v. … In Cook v. Clay St. Ry. Co., 60 Cal. 604 , the wife had been an invalid for eight years prior to the death of her husband. In Evarts v. Santa Barbara etc. Ry.

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.

Randall v. Orange County Council

17 Cal. 4th 736 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1998

BROWN, J. I concur in the judgment for the reasons expressed in my concurring opinion in the companion case of Curran 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.

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.

People v. Rico

180 Cal. 385 · California Supreme Court · May 20, 1919

Ortiz to leave the premises, the reason apparently -being that he had failed to pay for his board and lodging. He left, and shortly thereafter returned and obtained his clothes, which he took away. … The principal point made in the appellant’s brief is substantially that the evidence fails to show the premeditation which is an essential element of the first degree of the crime of murder. [1] As said in People v.