Case law

Forster Shipbuilding Co. v. County of Los Angeles

54 Cal. 2d 450 · California Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1960

Co. v. … IV, §31; Texas Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.2d 55, 66 [ 338 P.2d 440 ] ; Conlin v. Board of Supervisors, 99 Cal. 17, 21-22 [ 33 P. 753 , 37 Am.St.Rep. 17 , 21 L.R.A. 474 ] ; County of Alameda v.

McCray v. State Bar

38 Cal. 3d 257 · California Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1985

(c); Himmel v. … We generally give the reviewing board’s recommendation of discipline the greater weight. (Tomlinson v. State Bar (1975) 13 Cal.3d 567, 578 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 335 , 531 P.2d 1119 ].)

In Re Cregler

56 Cal. 2d 308 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1961

As pointed out in People v. … (People v. Kelley (1937), 27 Cal. App.2d Supp. 771, 774 [3] [ 70 P.2d 276 ]; see also People v.

Wilcoxson v. Stitt

65 Cal. 596 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1884

The same construction was given to a similar clause in the case of Manning v. Brown, 1 Fairf. 49. The same principle was sustained in Kentucky, in Barbours’ Exrs. v. Brookie, 3 Marsh. J. J. 511.” *599 Canfield v. … In Cartwright v.

E. Clemens Horst Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

184 Cal. 180 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1920

(Pacific Coast Casualty Co. v. Pillsbury, 171 Cal. 319 , [ 153 Pac. 24 ] ; Western Metal Supply Co. v. Pills bury, 172 Cal. 413 , [Ann. Cas. 1917E, 390, 156 Pac. 491 ] ; Carstens v. … In Western Indemnity Co. v.

Quitzow v. Perrin

120 Cal. 255 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1898

Co. v. Neal, 94 Cal. 182 ; Dooly v. Norton, 41 Cal. 439 .) … (Fairbanks v. Lampkin, supra.)

People v. Bauer

1 Cal. 3d 368 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1969

Logan, 41 Cal.2d 279, 290-291 [ 260 P.2d 20 ] [robbery and assault with a deadly weapon]; People v. Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577, 590-594 [ 320 P.2d 5 ] [abortion and murder]; Neal v. … Brown, supra, 49 Cal.2d 577, 591 .) Under this principle, the taking of several items during the course of a robbery may not be used to furnish the basis for separate *377 sentences.

Lane v. Bing

202 Cal. 577 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1927

The case of Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 39 Cal. … The latest decision of this court touching this subject is that of Kish v.

People v. Nichols

3 Cal. 3d 150 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1970

(In re Bandmann (1958) 51 Cal.2d 388, 392 [ 333 P.2d 339 ]; Heron v. Riley (1930) 209 Cal. 507, 510-511 [ 289 P. 160 ]; Los Angeles City School Dist. v. Odell (1927) 200 Cal. 637, 641 [ 254 P. 570 ]; Robins v. … (Dunlop v.

Barker Bros., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

10 Cal. 2d 603 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1938

(State Board of Tax Commrs. v. Jackson, 283 U. S. 527 [51 Sup. Ct. 540, 75 L. Ed. 1248 , 73 A. L. R 1464, 75 A. L. R 1536]; Bell’s Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232 [10 Sup. Ct. 533, 33 L. Ed. 892 ].) … The City of Los Angeles relies strongly upon State Board of Tax Commrs. v. Jackson, supra, and Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U. S. 517 [53 Sup. Ct. 481, 77 L. Ed. 929 , 85 A. L.

Williams v. Lerch

56 Cal. 330 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

(Means v. Williamson, 37 Mc. 556.) … (Barney v. Brown, 2 Vt. 374 .) And in Montgomery v.

Kripp v. Curtis

71 Cal. 62 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1886

(Clark v. Rugg, 2 Roll. Abr. 60; Smyles v. Hastings, 22 N. Y. 217 .) … (Lansing v. Wiswell, 5 Denio, 213 .)

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.

Claxton v. Waters

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 246 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2004

In yet another decision, Delaney v. … In that case, Mitchell v.

Himmelmann v. Spanagel

39 Cal. 389 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1870

It was held, in Poett v. Stearns ( 28 Cal. 226 ), and Anthony v. … The doctrine is well settled in this Court, in Emery v. San Francisco Gas Co. ( 28 Cal. 345 ); Emery v. Bradford ( 29 Cal. 75 ); Nolan v. Reese ( 32 Cal. 484 ), and Himmelmann v.

Elkins v. Superior Court

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 483 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 2007

Code, § 210.) 14 Respondent relies upon this court’s decision in In re Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 610 , 127 P.3d 28 ] (Brown & Yana) for the proposition that courts have discretion not … (Brown & Yana, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 959 ; see id. at pp. 955-956; Montenegro v.

Cain v. State Bar

25 Cal. 3d 956 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1979

(See Hamilton v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 868 , *961 878 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 602 , 591 P.2d 1254 ]; Weir v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 564, 570, 576 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 921 , 591 P.2d 19 ].) … (Weir v. State Bar, supra, 23 Cal.3d 564, 576 ; Worth v. State Bar (1978) 22 Cal.3d 707, 711 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 586 P.2d 588 ].)

People v. Bauer

1 Cal. 3d 368 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1969

Logan, 41 Cal.2d 279, 290-291 [ 260 P.2d 20 ] [robbery and assault with a deadly weapon]; People v. Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577, 590-594 [ 320 P.2d 5 ] [abortion and murder]; Neal v. … Brown, supra, 49 Cal.2d 577, 591 .) (10) Under this principle, the taking of several items during the course of a robbery may not be used to furnish the basis for separate *377 sentences.

Hobart v. Tillson

66 Cal. 210 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1884

In the case of The Farmers’ Cooperative Union v. … (Le Conte v. Berkeley, 57 Cal. 269 ; People v. Board of Election Commissioners, 54 Cal. 404 ; Maurer v. Mitchell, 53 Cal. 289 ; Spring Valley Water Works v. San Francisco, 52 Cal. 111 .)

Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zellerbach

37 Cal. 543 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

In Treadwell v. … The next point is, that the deed of October 20th, 1860, from the Miners’ Ditch Company to the Eureka Lake Water Company is void, because not authorized by the Board of Trustees acting as a Board. In Gashwiler v.