Case law

Montgomery v. Rauer

125 Cal. 227 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1899

(Wallace v. Brown, 41 Ind. 436 ; Baughn v. Shackleford, 48 Miss. 255 ; Austin v. Willson, 21 Ind. 252 .) Yet this in many instances is precisely what he attempted to *230 do. … (Hayes v. Massachusetts Mut.L.Ins. Co., 125 Ill. 626 ; Culp v. Lee, 109 N. C. 675 ; Hagy v. Avery, 69 Iowa, 434 ; Lunday v. Thomas, 26 Ga. 537 .)

Brodrib v. Brodrib

56 Cal. 563 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

In Clarke v. Perry, 5 Cal. 60 , and Deck v. … As was said by the Master of the Bolls, in Taylor v. Haylin, 2 Brown Ch. 310 : “ A person who comes to unravel an account must always show clear grounds.” A general charge of errors is not sufficient.

Germania Trust Co. v. City & County of San Francisco

128 Cal. 589 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1900

(People v. Hibernia Bank, 51 Cal. 243 ; 21 Am. Rep. 704 ; Bank of Mendocino v. Chalfant, 51 Cal. 369 .) … Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 59, is pressed upon our attention.

Stern & Goodman Investment Co. v. Danziger

206 Cal. 456 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1929

Soc. v. Ordway, 38 Cal. 680 ; South’s Heirs v. … (Brown v. Canty, 31 Cal. App. 184 [ 159 Pac. 1056 ].)

Wind v. Hite

58 Cal. 2d 415 · California Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1962

(Food & Grocery Bureau, Inc. v. Garfield, 18 Cal.2d 174, 177 [ 114 P.2d 579 ]; see 3 Witkin, California Procedure (1954) pp. 2208, 2210.) … opened, or who conducts, either as owner or employee, whether for hire or not, any game of draw poker, including lowball poker, is guilty of a misdemeanor, (c) Subdivision (b) shall become operative in a county only if the board

Crawford v. Dunbar

52 Cal. 36 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

(Dorland v. McGlynn, 47 Cal. 47 ; Wells v. Stevens, 2 Gray, 115 ; Gannon v. Chandler, 30 Me. 152 ; Crane v. Godfrey, 44 Me. 25 ; Kelley v. Dresser, 11 Allen, 31 ; McMicken v. Commonwealth, 58 Pa. 213 ; Commonwealth v. … Law Rep., Jan. 25th, 1876; Brown v. Galloway, Peters C. C. 291.) W. L. Dudley, D. 8. Terry, and F. T. Baldwin, for the Eespondent.

Smith v. Anderson

67 Cal. 2d 635 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1967

Justice Jackson in McGrath v. … (U.S.) 504 [12- L.Ed. 256], recanting views he had pressed upon the Court as Attorney General of Maryland in Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat.

Creed v. McCombs

146 Cal. 449 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1905

(Girvin v. Simon, 127 Cal. 491 ; Belser v. Hoffschneider, 104 Cal. 455 .) … In Williams v. Bergin, 108 Cal. 169 , and Belser v.

Southern California Edison Co. v. Railroad Commission

194 Cal. 757 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1924

Application was made to the board of supervisors of the county of Ventura for a franchise to lay its mains in certain public highways within the county. … Co. v. Railroad Com., 173 Cal. 380 [ 160 Pac. 228 ], Van Hoosear v. Railroad Com., 184 Cal. 553 [ 194 Pac. 1003 ], and Brewer v. Railroad Com., 190 Cal. 60 [ 210 Pac. 511 ].

In re A.N.

California Supreme Court · May 4, 2020

(See Dyna-Med, Inc. v. … (People v. Gray (2014) 58 Cal.4th 901, 906.)

Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Enright

127 Cal. 669 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1900

S. 225 , and Kellogg v. … It was said in State Trust Co. v.

In Re Halck

215 Cal. 500 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1932

The language complained of means no more than similar language construed in the following cases: Riley v. Chambers, 181 Cal. 589 [8 A. L. R. 418, 185 Pac. 855 ]; Tarpey v. … And, where so lawfully added, the power of such officer or board to adopt reasonable regulations for its enforcement is a necessary corollary. (In re Potter, 164 Cal. 735 [ 130 Pac. 721 ]; People v. Kuder, 93 Cal.

Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2002

(See generally Columbia v. … Brown (1978) 20 Cal.3d 765, 775 , 144 Cal.Rptr. 758 , 576 P.2d 473 ; see also People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 Cal.4th 90, 101 , 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 610 , 939 P.2d 1310 .)

Sullivan v. State Bar

45 Cal. 2d 112 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1955

(Herrscher v. State Bar, 4 Cal.2d 399, 402-403 [ 49 P.2d 832 ].) Petitioner’s conduct with respect to counts 2, 14, and 5 cannot be condoned and warrants disciplinary action. … State Bar, 39 Cal.2d 161, 174 [ 246 P.2d 1 ]), we have concluded that the punishment recommended by the Board of Governors is too severe in this case.

Traber v. Railroad Commission

183 Cal. 304 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1920

Bank v. Board of Equalization, 97 Cal. 325 , [ 32 Pac. 312 ]; In re Grove Street, 61 Cal. 453 ; Ex parte Sternes, 77 Cal. 162 , [ 11 Am. St. Rep. 251 , 19 Pac. 275 ]; De Pedrorena v. … Co. v.

Wallis v. State Bar

21 Cal. 2d 322 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1942

(Lantz v. State Bar, 212 Cal. 213 [ 298 P. 497 ]; Matter of Coffey, 123 Cal. 522 [ 56 P. 448 ].) … The State Bar relies upon In re Soale, 31 Cal.App. 144 [ 159 P. 1065 ], and Lantz v. State Bar, supra, as justifying its recommendation for suspension.

Union Sav. Bank of San Jose v. Leiter

145 Cal. 696 · California Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1905

Co. v. Declez etc. … Kohler v.

People v. Ashmus

54 Cal. 3d 932 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1991

Brown, supra, at p. 467 (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.) [citing Chapman v. … (People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 530 .) The court could reasonably have resolved the issue in the negative.

People v. Hinshaw

194 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1924

The following authorities are also cited in the note: People v. Brown, 37 Cal. App. 101 [ 173 Pac. 621 ]; People v. Ruiz, 39 Cal. App. 593 [ 179 Pac. 691 ]; People v. Griesheimer, 176 Cal. 44 [ 167 Pac. 521 ]; People v. … When People v. Brown, 42 Cal. App. 462 [ 183 Pac. 829 ], was cited, counsel for appellant conceded that point was not well taken.

Levinson v. Boas

150 Cal. 185 · California Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1907

Thus in Brown v. Duncan, 10 B. & C. 93, the action was on a guaranty for sales of liquor, which had been distilled without a license under a statute requiring a license and affixing a penalty. … The distinction declared in Brown v. Duncan was that the *193 statute in Law v. Hodgson was designed to protect the public; while that in the ease before them was a mere revenue regulation.