Case law

Tubby v. Tubby

202 Cal. 272 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1927

(Brown v. Campbell, 110 Cal. 644 [ 43 Pac. 12 ].) Jurisdiction is vested by the constitution in the court, not in a particular judge or department. … (Graziani v. Denny, 174 Cal. 176 [ 162 Pac. 397 ].)

Stiebel v. Roberts

27 Cal. 2d 70 · California Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1945

(Panos v. Great Western Packing Co., 21 Cal.2d 636, 638 [ 134 P.2d 242 ]; Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807, 810 [122 *75 P.2d 892]; Hamilton v. Carpenter, 15 Cal.2d 130, 133 [ 98 P.2d 1027 ]; Seidell v. … (See Estate of Horman, 167 Cal. 473, 475 [ 140 P. 11 ]; Colden v. Costello, 50 Cal.App.2d 363, 371 [ 122 P.2d 959 ].)

Ruiz v. Podolsky

50 Cal. 4th 838 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 2010

In Madden , we considered an employee’s challenge to an arbitration agreement the Board of Administration of the State Employees Retirement System (Board) entered into on behalf of the employee as part of a larger agreement … Code, former § 22751 et seq.), the Legislature entrusted to the Board the authority to make group medical plans available to state employees, but neither expressly granted nor withheld authority for the Board to agree to

Lauer v. Estes

120 Cal. 652 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1898

The board of supervisors after canvassing the returns declared Estes elected, and he received the certificate of election. … Under the views expressed in Tebbe v.

In Re Ellis

11 Cal. 2d 571 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1938

(Olmstead v. Rich, 53 Hun, 638 [ 6 N. Y. Supp. 826 ]; Town of Arkadelphia v. Clark, 52 Ark. 23 [ 11 S. W. 957 , 20 Am. St. Rep. 154 ].) … (See, also, Brown v. City of Los Angeles, 183 Cal. 783 [192 Pac. 716]; Reiman v. Little Rock, 237 U. S. 171, 176 [35 Sup. Ct. 511, 59 L. Ed. 900 ].) The writ is discharged and the petitioner remanded.

Loeb v. Christie

6 Cal. 2d 416 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1936

Assn. v. … Since the filing of appellant’s briefs in this cause we have handed down our decision in the case of Brown v. Ferdon, 5 Cal. (2d) 226 [ 54 Pac. (2d) 712 ], and companion cases.

Ginn v. Podesta

8 Cal. 2d 233 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1937

Podesta for a ten-year term for a rental of one-quarter of the crop, the lease providing that the lessee should furnish Hill with board and lodging. … (Waer v. Waer, 189 Cal. 178 [ 207 Pac. 891 ]; Cooper v. Kellogg, 2 Cal. (2d) 504. [ 42 Pac. (2d) 59 ].) The judgment is affirmed. Shenk, J., Curtis, J., Langdon, J., Seawell, J., Waste, C. J., and Edmonds, J., concurred.

Tasker v. Warmer

202 Cal. 445 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1927

We have recently decided in the ease of McMahon v. … (Brown v. Superior Court, 175 Cal. 141 [165 Pac. 429]; Going v. Guy, 166 Cal. 279 [ 135 Pac. 1128 ]; 2 Cal. Jur. 634, sec. 352.) Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue as prayed for.

Speegle v. Joy

60 Cal. 278 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1882

In the case of Peachy v. The Board of Supervisors of Calaveras County, 8 Pac. C. L.

In Re Gaffney

28 Cal. 2d 761 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1946

Petitioner has applied for readmission to practice law in this state after his disbarment by this court (Gaffney v. State Bar, 20 Cal.2d 735 [ 128 P.2d 516 ]). … ground that petitioner has rehabilitated himself and now possesses the moral qualifications and mental attainments necessary to entitle him to be restored as a member of the bar; and also upon the ground that although the Board

Bonds v. Roy

83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 289 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1999

Opinion BROWN, J. … (See Province v.

People v. Hartman

130 Cal. 487 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1900

It is said in People v. … In Commonwealth v.

Hocharian v. Superior Court

28 Cal. 3d 714 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1981

Rules of Court, rule 203.5; Sanborn v. Chronicle Pub. Co. (1976) 18 Cal.3d 406 , 418-419 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 402 , 556 P.2d 764 ]; Denham v. … Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 , 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ]; Corlett v. Gordon (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 1005 , 1013 et seq. [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 524 ]; Brown v. Pacific Tel. Tel.

Bryant v. State Bar

21 Cal. 2d 285 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1942

The findings of the committee, with slight modifications, were adopted by the Board of Bar Governors. … State Bar, 217 Cal. 47, 51 [ 17 P.2d 112 ] ; Tapley v. *299 State Bar, 8 Cal.2d 167, 172 [ 64 F.2d 404 ]; Geibel & Morfoot v. State Bar, 14 Cal.2d 144, 149 [ 93 P.2d 97 ]; Rohe v.

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.

Stafford v. California Canning Peach Growers

11 Cal. 2d 212 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1938

Growers v. Harkey, ante, p. 188 [ 78 Pac. (2d) 1137 ]), decided this day, the association elected a new board of directors. … (Coneland Water Co. v. Nickalls, 75 Cal. App. 212 [ 242 Pac. 518 ]; National Bank v. Exchange Nat. Bank, 186 Cal. 172 [ 199 Pac. 1 ]; Horton v. Winbigler, 175 Cal. 149 [ 165 Pac. 423 ].)

Union Transportation Co. v. Sacramento County

42 Cal. 2d 235 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1954

Hargro v. Hodgdon, supra; Niles v. City of Los Angeles, supra; Bolger v. Foss, 65 Cal. 250, 251 [ 3 P. 871 ] ; Harding v. … (Mulch v.

Pacific Vinegar & Pickle Works v. Smith

145 Cal. 352 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1904

(San Diego v. San Diego etc. R.R. Co., 44 Cal. 112 ; Andrews v. Pratt, 44 Cal. 317 ; Wilbur v. Lynde, 49 Cal. 292 ; 1 Chamberlain v. Pacific Wool-Growers Co., 54 Cal. 106 ; Shakespear v. Smith, 77 Cal. 638 ; 2 Smith v. … At an annual meeting of the board of directors and stockholders this note was recognized, sanctioned, and approved by them. There was nothing in the case calling for the application of the rule declared in Davis v.

Requa v. Snow

76 Cal. 590 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1888

In Green v. … And this question, too, is decided in effect by Brown v. Coviliaud, 6 Cal. 568 , from which opinion the negative of the proposition results as a logical necessity.”'

People v. Cox

135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2003

Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 540-544 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 726 P.2d 516 ] (Brown), reversed on another issue sub nomine California v. … J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.