Case law

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.)

St. John's Well Child & Family Center v. Schwarzenegger

50 Cal. 4th 960 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2010

Wood v. … In Bengzon [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.

Wilson v. Hotchkiss

171 Cal. 617 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1915

(Wilson v. Hotchkiss, 21 Cal. App. 392 , [ 132 Pac. 88 ].) … To precisely the same effect is Gardet v.

Durrell v. Dooner

119 Cal. 411 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1897

and the contract shows upon its face that the work was to be done at a place in the county of Los Angeles outside of any incorporated city or town, or was to be done “in accordance with the ordinance to be passed by the board … (Buckley v. Howe, 86 Cal. 605 .) The judgment is affirmed. Temple, J., and Henshaw, J., concurred.

Rowe v. Such

134 Cal. 573 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1901

Supp. 953 ; Cadwell v. Arnheim, 152 N. Y. 182 ; Brown v. Collins, 53 N. H. 442; 2 Bennett v. Ford, 47 Ind. 264 ; O’Brien v. Miller, 60 Conn. 214 ; 3 Creamer v. McIlvain, 89 Md. 343 ; 4 Herrick v. … Co. v. McGrath, 115 Ill. 172 ; Memphis etc. R. R. Co. v. Womack, 84 Ala. 149 ; The Central R. R. v. Moore, 61 Ga. 151 .

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.)

Grant v. Burr

54 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

(Koch v. Briggs, 14 Cal. 256 .) The doctrine of Koch v. Briggs has never been overthrown by subsequent decisions. 2nd. … It is true that Arrington v. Liscom, ( 34 Cal. 365 ) has sometimes been supposed to hold the contrary. But Arrington v.

Hallidie v. First Federal Trust Co.

177 Cal. 600 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1918

(Ryder v. Bamberger, 172 Cal. 791 , [ 158 Pac. 753 ].) … It was his practice to attend the meetings of the board of directors, which were held monthly.

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.

Tilton v. Russek

171 Cal. 731 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1916

In Metteer v. … (Rue v. Quinn, 137 Cal. 651 , [ 66 Pac. 616 , 70 Pac. 732 ]; People v. Wrin, 143 Cal. 11 , [ 76 Pac. 646 ]; People v. Norris, 144 Cal. 422 , [ 77 Pac. 998 ]; Sharp v.

Southern Service Co. v. County of Los Angeles

15 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1940

McClure, supra; Younger v. Board of Supervisors, 68 Cal. 241, 242 [ 9 Pac. 103 ] ; Cooper v. Chamberlain, 78 Cal. 450 [ 21 Pac. 14 ]; Dear v. Varnum, 80 Cal. 86 [22 Pac. 76]; Phelan v. … Ed. 773 ] ; Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Commrs., 258 U. S. 338 [42 Sup. Ct. 325, 66 L. Ed. 647 ] ; Coombes v. Getz, 285 U. S. 434 [52 Sup. Ct. 435, 76 L.

Thompson v. Kraft Cheese Co.

210 Cal. 171 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1930

(Fisher v. Feige, 137 Cal. 39 [ 92 Am. St. Rep. 77 , 59 L. R. A. 333, 69 Pac. 618 ]; Peterson v. City of Santa Rosa, 119 Cal. 387 [ 51 Pac. 557 ]; McMenomy v. Baud, 87 Cal. 134 [ 26 Pac. 557 ]; Singer v. … In People v. City of Reedley, 66 Cal.

Huntington Park Redevelopment Agency v. Martin

38 Cal. 3d 100 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1985

Dorsey and Rochelle Browne as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner. Charles R. Martin for Respondent. OPINION MOSK, J. … (Italics added.) [2] In addition, section 11 of SB 152 provides that "the State Board of Equalization shall not administer any sales tax imposed by a redevelopment agency pursuant to this act unless and until an appellate

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.

People v. One 1948 Chevrolet Conv. Coupe

45 Cal. 2d 613 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1955

Brown, Attorney General, Donald D. Stoker and W. B. Thayer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant. Samuel B. Stewart, Jr., Hugo A. Steinmeyer and Joseph S. Potts for Respondent. TRAYNOR, J. … Therefore so far as the record in this case is concerned the cigarettes found in the coat and in the car are brown paper cigarettes, no more." (116 Cal.App.2d at 750-751.)

Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc.

1 Cal. 5th 233 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2016

Every dispute within those inclusive clauses is for the arbitrator, ‘“with the sole exception of claims arising under the National Labor Relations Act which are brought before the National Labor Relations Board, claims for … Congressional intent is the touchstone of any preemption analysis (e.g., Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 298, 318 [ 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 ]; Brown v.

Southern Pacific Co. v. City of Pomona

144 Cal. 339 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1904

The cases bearing upon the subject are: Bolger v. Foss, 65 Cal. 250 ; Hope v. Barrett, 78 Cal. 9 ; Gloster v. Wade, 78 Cal. 407 ; McRose v. Bottyer, 81 Cal. 122 ; Freshour v. Hihn, 99 Cal. 443 ; People v. … (See, also, what is said in Schwerdtle v. County of Placer, 108 Cal. 589, at p. 593 .) There is nothing in Huffman v. Hall, 102 Cal. 26 , contrary to the doctrine laid down in Bolger v.

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.