Case law

Naegele v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

28 Cal. 4th 856 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 2002

In the companion case of Myers v. … J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. Further undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code.

Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 906 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2004

(Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ].) … (See City of San Jose 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.

Fleming v. Superior Court

196 Cal. 344 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1925

, or officer has regularly pursued the authority of such tribunal, board, or officer.’ … (Sherer v. Superior Court, 94 Cal. 354 [ 29 Pac. 716 ].) In Roberts v.

People v. Alaska Pacific S. S. Co.

182 Cal. 202 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1920

Co. v. Superior Court, 153 Cal. 536 , [ 126 Am. St. Rep. 125 , 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1117, 93 Pac. 15 ] ; Mulford Co. v. … Co. v.

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.

People v. Jordan

172 Cal. 391 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1916

In Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288 -296, [ 56 L. Ed. 439 , 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 286], Mr. … (Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114 , [ 32 L. Ed. 623 ,9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 231]; Watson v. Maryland, 218 U. S. 173 , [ 54 L. Ed. 987 , 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644].) He, like others, must begin by a diagnosis.

Sears v. Starbird

78 Cal. 225 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1889

In Sill v. … (Clouch v. Moyer, 23 Kan. 405 ; Brown v. Agnew, 6 Watts & S. 235 ; Whetstone v. Shaw, 70 Mo. 575 ; Civ. Code, sec. 2412.)

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Superior Court

207 Cal. 709 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1929

Land Co. v. Preciado, 167 Cal. 580 [ 140 Pac. 239 ]. … Land Co. v.

People v. Wheeler

73 Cal. 252 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1887

(People v. Velarde, 59 Cal. 458 .) … S. 519 , and McBrown v.

Willey v. Crocker-Woolworth National Bank

141 Cal. 508 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1904

As is stated in Brennan v. … Though the cases are to the same effect: Lord v. Baldwin, 6 Pick. 352 ; Van Valen v. Russell, 13 Barb. 592 ; Allen v. Brown, 39 Iowa, 330 ; and Brown’s Appeal, 17 Pa. St. 484.)

City of Moorpark v. Moorpark Unified School District

54 Cal. 3d 921 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1991

(See, e.g., Moore v. Panish (1982) 32 Cal.3d 535, 541 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 475 , 652 P.2d 32 ].) … “The governing board shall have discretion to determine whether the offer shall be an offer to sell or an offer to lease.

Wall v. M. & R. Sheep Co.

33 Cal. 2d 768 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1949

(Wall v. State of California, 73 Cal. App.2d 838 [ 167 P.2d 740 ], decided April 5, 1946.) … Prom the foregoing it follows that the plaintiff is not in position to invoke the doctrine of Miller v. McKenna, supra (see also Hall v.

McCreery v. Sawyer

52 Cal. 257 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

(Leroy v. Cunningham, 44 Cal. 600 ; Low v. Lewis, 46 Ibid. 549; Van Hastrup v. Madison City, 1 Wall. 297 ; Dupond v. Barstow, 45 Cal. 451 ; Doll v. Meador, 16 Ibid. 325; Randall v. Austin, 46 Ibid. 269; Wetherbee v. … Cunningham) “ for the Board of Supervisors, in which the defendant had no concern, inasmuch as he was not entitled to the conveyance.” ( 44 Cal. 609 .) 2.

Brennan v. Ford

46 Cal. 7 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

The demurrer in this respect is not obnoxious to the objection commented upon in Brown v. Martin, 25 Cal. 89 , and Kent v. Snyder, 30 Cal. 672 . … (Miles v. Thorne, 38 Cal. 335 .)

Kaluzok v. Brisson

27 Cal. 2d 760 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1946

(Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers, Inc., 206 Cal. 515 , 521-522 *764 [274 P. 977]; Brady v. Times-Mirror Co., 106 Cal. 56 [ 39 P. 209 ].) … (Paolini v. Sulprizio, 201 Cal. 683 [ 258 P. 380 ]; Himes v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507 [ 143 P. 729 ]; Palladine v. Imperial Valley F. & L. Ass’n, 65 Cal. *765 App. 727 [ 225 P. 291 ]; Pembrook 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 ].)

People of San Francisco v. Eaton

46 Cal. 100 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

But the plaintiff claims that, under the statute, only three defenses are permitted, viz : first, that the Board never acquired jurisdiction to order the work; second, payment of the assessment; *102 third, fraud in the assessment … (People v. Waterman, 31 Cal. 412 .) Judgment and order affirmed.

People v. Montoya

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 902 · California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 2004

(People v. Miranda (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1467 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 610 ]; accord, People v. Scheidt (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 162, 165-171 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 228 ]; People v. … J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurred. Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

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