Case law

People v. Reyes

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 734 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1998

Opinion BROWN, J. In People v. … The Board of Prison Terms must provide a period of parole; the prisoner must accept it. (Pen. Code, § 3000 et seq.) Without choice, there can be no voluntary consent to inclusion of the search condition.

F. A. Hihn Co. v. City of Santa Cruz

170 Cal. 436 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1915

(People v. Morrill, 26 Cal. 336, 353 ; Teschemacher v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 21 , [ 79 Am. Dec. 151 ] ; Wright v. Seymour, 69 Cal. 125 [ 10 Pac. 323 ].) … (Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 530 .)

West v. Crawford

80 Cal. 19 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1889

(Steamboat Co. v. Seawell, 78 Me. 167 ; Oldtown and Lincoln R. R. Co. v. Veazie, 39 Me. 571 ; Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Abbott, 9 Cush. 423 ; Stoneham Branch R. R. Co. v. Gould, 2 Gray, 277 ; Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. … (Twin Creek and Turnpike Co. v. Lancaster, 79 Ky. 552 ; Christian College v. Hendley, 49 Cal. 347 ; George v. Harris, 4 N. H. 533; 17 Am. Dec. 446 ; Amherst Academy v. Cowls, 6 Pick. 427 ; 17 Am. Dec. 386 ; Funk v.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Jacober

10 Cal. 3d 193 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1973

Co. v. … Exch. v. Brown (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 120 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 1 ] and Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Geyer (1967) 247 Cal.

People v. Yeager

194 Cal. 452 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1924

It was said in People v. … Brown, and he answered that juror Brown had made up his mind and would convict appellant; and that on the ground of a life-long acquaintance with Lorentzen, Kennedy, on December 13, 1923, refused to make an affidavit of the

Daubenspeck v. Platt

22 Cal. 330 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

(Stapp v. Phelps, 7 Dana, 300 ; Goldsmith v. Osborne, 1 Edw. Ch. 560 .) And when the plaintiffs’ proofs were closed they had made out a prima facie case against the other defendants. … (Pritchard v. Brown, 4 N. H. 397; Hunter v. Watson, 12 Cal. 404 .) It is urged that an action to redeem does not lie in this State before foreclosure.

Silva v. Spangler

5 Cal. Unrep. 277 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1896

In support of the last proposition we are referred to the ease of Grimes v. Linscott (not officially reported; decided May 24, 1895), ante, p. 38, 40 Pac. 421 . … There is no claim that this road was ever declared a highway by the board of supervisors. It only remains, then, to inquire, Did the owners thereof dedicate it to the public use?

Gerken v. Fair Political Practices Commission

6 Cal. 4th 707 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1993

Co. v. … Respondents are the Fair Political Practices Commission and the Franchise Tax Board. Amicus curiae briefs have been filed by: (i) Assemblyman Willie L.

People v. Flanagan

62 Cal. 2d 63 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1964

Those findings bring the present case within the rules announced in the cases of People v. Tucker, supra, 61 Cal.2d 828 , and People v. Johnson, supra, 61 Cal.2d 843 . … (Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477 [ 83 S.Ct. 768 , 9 L.Ed.2d 892 ].) “Under the findings a denial of the right to appeal would present serious constitutional problems.

People ex rel. Graves v. McFadden

81 Cal. 489 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1889

(See also Hobart v. Supervisors of Butte County, 17 Cal. 23 .) In the case of People v. … (Brooks v.

Davis v. Winona Wagon Co.

120 Cal. 244 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1898

(Brown v. Bank of Napa, 77 Cal. 544 .) No demand for a return of the property was necessary before the action was brought. … (Parrott v. Byers, 40 Cal. 622 .)

People v. Wayne

41 Cal. 2d 814 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1953

(People v. Baskins (1946), 72 Cal.App.2d 728, 731 [ 165 P.2d 510 ]; People v. Haley (1951), 102 Cal.App.2d 159, 165 [ 227 P.2d 48 ] ; see, also, People v. Brown (1923), 61 Cal.App. 748, 752-753 [ 216 P. 58 ] ; People v. … People v. Brown (1923), supra, 61 Cal.App. 748, 752-753 ; People v. Montgomery (1941), supra, 47 Cal.App.2d 1, 10-11 ; People v. Baskins (1946), supra, 72 Cal.App.2d 728, 731 ; People v.

Sweatt v. Dominguez

216 Cal. 527 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1932

Upon the authority of Price v. Whitman, 8 Cal. 412 , Iron Mountain Co. v. Haight, 39 Cal. 540 , Bank of Lemoore v. Fulgham, 151 Cal. 234, 237 [ 90 Pac. 936 ], and Cosgriff v. … Board of Election Commrs., 151 Cal. 407, 409 [ 91 Pac. 98 ], the alternative writ is discharged and the petition for a peremptory writ is denied.

Schumacher v. Truman

134 Cal. 430 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1901

(Smith v. Yule, 31 Cal. 180 ; 1 Staples v. Fenton, 5 Hun, 172 ; Pope v. Allen, 90 N. Y. 298 ; Holland v. Brown, 140 N. Y. 344 ; Rankin v. Coar, 46 N. J. Eq. 566; Ellison v. Torpin, 44 W. Va. 414 ; Munn v. … (Freeman on Cotenancy, sec. 167; Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586 ; 1 Wilcox v.

Stockton Lumber Co. v. Schuler

155 Cal. 411 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1909

The building affected by the proceedings was one erected by the defendant Brown, as contractor, upon property owned by the defendant Schuler, *412 pursuant to a contract entered, into between them. … (Ward v. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413 , [ 39 Am. Rep. 674 ]; Dunning v. Clark, 2 E. D. Smith 535; People v. Butler, 61 How. Pr. 274 ; Raven v. Smith, 76 Hun, 60 , [ 27 N. Y. Supp. 611 ]; In re Dean, 83 Hun, 413 , [ 31 N. Y.

De La Guerra v. Striedel

159 Cal. 85 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1910

While there is, perhaps, some force in this contention (see Niles v. … It was board fence from the gate down to my tract of land of three or four boards. When I first put up the fence I put up bars there, but I only kept them up a short time, and I put up a gate with hinges.

People ex rel. Hargrave v. Markham

104 Cal. 232 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1894

. ■ In pursuance of these provisions a special election was held in said county on the 16th of May, 1893, and on the 20th of the same month said board of commissioners declared the county to be duly organized. … Nothing decided in People v.

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.

Long Beach School District v. Lutge

129 Cal. 409 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1900

Lumber Co. v. Drew, 125 Cal. 585 . … Lumber Co. v. Drew, above cited, had not been decided when this case was heard in the superior court.

Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach

52 Cal. 4th 155 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2011

(E.g., Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 439; Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1581; see 8 Witkin, Cal. … (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 439, discussing public interest standing.)