Case law

Ex parte Wadleigh

82 Cal. 518 · California Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1890

It does not take away or interfere v ith such power in any way. The statute simply fixes the term of imprisonment in certain cases and upon certain conditions. … This is subject, however, to the right of the board of prison directors to determine, before the expiration of his term, that he has, by subsequent misconduct, forfeited his right to such deductions.

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.

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.

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.

People v. Munn

65 Cal. 211 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1884

(Brown v. The State, 28 Ga. 200 .) Beating and striking a wife violently with the open hand, the blows being illegal, the killing of the wife in such manner is manslaughter. (Commonw. v. McAffee, 108 Mass. 461 .) … (Smith v. State, 33 Me. 55 .) The case of Wellar v.

Legislature v. Reinecke

10 Cal. 3d 396 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1973

IV, § 6; Silver v. Brown (1965) 63 Cal.2d 270, 279 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 308 , 405 P.2d 132 ].) 4. … IV, § 6; Silver v. Brown, supra, 63 Cal.2d 270, 279 .)

Moore v. Conliffe

7 Cal. 4th 634 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1994

More recently, the court again declined to expand a statutory privilege in Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ]. … See Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., supra, 48 Cal.3d 711, 728-729 , footnote 15. Those citations were: “Perkins vs. Mitchell, 31 Barb., p. 461; Lewis vs. Chapman, 16 N.Y., p. 369; Thorn vs.

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.

Esposti v. Rivers Brothers, Inc.

207 Cal. 570 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1929

The following are some of the leading eases upon which the respondents thus rely: Matthews v. Ormerd, 140 Cal. 578 [ 74 Pac. 136 ]; Trusdale v. Dowdle, 47 N. J. Eq. 396 [ 20 Atl. 972 ]; Terminal Bank v. … Supp. 609 ]; Brown v. Jones, 89 Misc. Rep. 536 [ 152 N. Y. Supp. 571 ]; Stein v. Indianapolis Building etc. Assn., 18 Ind. 237 [ 81 Am. Dec. 353 ] ; Essley v. Sloan (Ill.), 6 N. E. 449 ; Key West Wharf & Coal Co. 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. Wheeler

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

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

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.

Estate of Dolbeer

149 Cal. 227 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1906

“I did not notice any physical ailment of Miss Dolbeer while she was under my observation, while she was on' board the ship. … They [Miss Dolbeer - and Miss Warren] acted the same as any other passengers on board the ship.” “I could not see her in any way different from other people.”

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.

People v. Moran

144 Cal. 48 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1904

Counsel cites a number of cases, including People v. Stevens, 68 Cal. 114 ; People v. Creegan, 121 Cal. 560 , and Hicks v. United States, 150 U. … Counsel cites People v. Irwin, 77 Cal. 502 ; People v. Lee Dick Lung, 129 Cal. 491 ; People v.

Potvin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 496 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 2000

BROWN, J. I dissent. … Baxter, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

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.

Rosasco v. County of Tuolumne

143 Cal. 430 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1904

In Ford v. … In State v.

Empire Star Mines Co. v. California Employment Commission

28 Cal. 2d 33 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1946

As a further ground for the reversal of the judgment, the commission argues that, under the rule stated and applied in Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners, 21 Cal.2d 790 [ 136 P.2d 304 ]; Sipper v. … Urban, 22 Cal.2d 138 [ 137 P.2d 425 ]; Madruga v. Borden Co., 63 Cal.App.2d 116 [ 146 P.2d 273 ] ; Vaughn v. Board of Police Commissioners, 59 Cal.App.2d 771 [ 140 P.2d 130 ] ; and National Labor Relations Board v.