Case law

People v. Gale

46 Cal. 2d 253 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1956

46 Cal.2d 253 (1956) THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. PAUL EDSON GALE, Respondent. Crim. No. 5769. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. Feb. 24, 1956. Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, and William E. … (People v. Brown, 45 Cal.2d 640, 643 [ 290 P.2d 528 ].) The order is affirmed. Gibson, C.J., Carter, J., Schauer, J., and McComb, J., concurred. SPENCE, J. I dissent.

People v. Conklin

12 Cal. 3d 259 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1974

(Hines v. Davidowitz, supra, 312 U.S. 52, 67 , fn. omitted [ 85 L.Ed. 581, 587 ]; see *270 also Head v. New Mexico Board, supra, 374 U.S. at p. 432 [10 L.Ed.2d at pp. 989-990]; Florida Avocado Growers v. … (See Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, supra, 373 U.S. at pp. 142-146 [10 L.Ed.2d at pp. 256-259]; Head v. New Mexico Board, supra, 374 U.S. at p. 432 [ 10 L.Ed.2d at p. 989 ]; cf. Goldstein v.

Hixon v. Brodie

45 Cal. 275 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

By the Court: We held in Hewes v. … Reis, 40 Cal. 262 , that the posting of the notice inviting sealed proposals in the manner directed by the statute was a condition precedent to the action of the Board in letting the contract.

Ex parte Wall

48 Cal. 279 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

(Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646 ; Barto v. Himrod, 8 N. Y. 483 ; Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome, 18 N. Y. 38 ; Starin v. The Town of Genoa, 23 N. Y. 429 ; Clark v. The City of Rochester, 28 N. Y. 605 ; Thorn v. … State, 5 Iowa, 491 ; *314 State v. Beneke, 9 Iowa, 203 ; State v. Weir, 33 Iowa, 134 ; Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342 ; Meshmeier v. State, 11 Ind. 482 ; State v. Swisher, 17 Tex. 441 ; State v. Panker, 26 Vt. 362 .)

People v. Williams

27 Cal. 2d 216 · California Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1945

threatened him with a knife and told him to keep away; that he had obtained the lye at the furniture shop where he worked and that he had put it with some water in a jar, had placed a cover on the jar and had put it in a brown … (In re Quinn, 25 Cal.2d 799 [ 154 P.2d 875 ]; People v. McNabb, 3 Cal.2d 441, 444 [ 45 P.2d 334 ]; In re Lee, 177 Cal. 690 [ 171 P. 958 ].) In People v.

People v. Mooney

177 Cal. 642 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1918

(People v. Mooney, 176 Cal. 105 , [ 167 Pac. 696 ].) … (Blythe v. Ayers, 102 Cal. 254 , [ 36 Pac. 522 ].)

People v. Lininger

17 Cal. 2d 851 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1941

17 Cal.2d 851 (1941) THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JOHN LININGER, Appellant. Crim. No. 4344. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. April 28, 1941. C. C. Barkley for Appellant. Earl Warren, Attorney-General, and J. Q. … Brown, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

Card v. Boms

210 Cal. 200 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1930

(Hughes v. Hartman, 206 Cal. 199 [ 273 Pac. 560 ].) … (People v. Fowler, 30 Cal. App. 183 [ 157 Pac. 540 ]; People v. Franklin, 46 Cal. App. 1 [ 188 Pac. 607 ] ; People v. Wilson, 76 Cal. App. 688 [ 245 Pac. 781 ].)

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

Le Blanc v. Swoap

16 Cal. 3d 741 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1976

Brown, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant. Clifford C. Sweet and Thomas Schneider for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION RICHARDSON, J. This case, a companion to Harlow v. … The most appropriate forum for the determination of an award of attorney's fees is the trial court. ( Horn v. Swoap (1974) 41 Cal. App.3d 375, 384 [ 116 Cal. Rptr. 113 ]; Clejan v. Reisman (1970) 5 Cal.

Serra Retreat v. County of Los Angeles

35 Cal. 2d 755 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1950

Neither the priests nor the lay-brothers receive any “remuneration whatsoever for their services excepting board, room and maintenance,” and all “work under a vow of poverty.” … As discussed in the opinion this day filed in the six consolidated hospital cases, Cedars of Lebanon Hospital v. County of Los Angeles, L. A.

Huffman v. Hall

102 Cal. 26 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1894

It was held in Billings v. … This rule of construction was afterwards reaffirmed by the court in Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal. 3 ; Morton v. Folger, 15 Cal. 284 ; Clarke v. Huber, 25 Cal. 594 ; Bensley v. Ellis, 39 Cal. 313 ; People v.

In Re Lokey

64 Cal. 2d 626 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1966

We need not consider whether the confessions and admissions were improperly obtained under the rules in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [ 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 ], and Massiah v. … The officers denied having told her they would take the house down board by board if necessary to get the gun. The referee determined that Mrs.

In Re Roger S.

19 Cal. 3d 921 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1977

In Goldberg v. … Brown (1975) 14 Cal.3d 571, 576-577 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. *946 231 , 536 P.2d 1017 ] (Clark, J., dissenting).)

In Re Hurwitz

17 Cal. 3d 562 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1976

(a) and (c)), or that the board’s finding of moral turpitude is not supported by the evidence (Lee v. … (Emslie v. State Bar, supra, 11 Cal.3d 210, 230 .)

Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.

3 Cal. 4th 370 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1992

, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board. … (Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104,107 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 ].)

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.

Matter of Stoltenberg

165 Cal. 789 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1913

(Wadleigh v. Gilman, 12 Me. 403 , [ 28 Am. Dec. 188 ]; Corporation of Knoxville v. Bird, 12 Lea (Tenn.), 121, [ 49 Am. Rep. 326 ] ; Klingler v. Backel, 117 Pa. St. 326, [ 11 Atl. 555 ] ; King v. … So far as the certificate is concerned, the board of health has no discretion to grant or deny, but must issue it if the building in fact conforms to the requirements of the law.

People ex rel. Britton v. Park and Ocean Railroad

76 Cal. 156 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1888

(People v. Davidson, 30 Cal. 383 .) Whether or not an encroachment upon a public or private right is a nuisance is a question of fact to be determined by a jury or by a court sitting as such. (People v. … Davidson, 30 Cal. 383 ; Requena v. Los Angeles, 45 Cal. 55; Blanc v. Klumpke, 29 Cal. 156 .)

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.