Case law

Freman v. Marshall

137 Cal. 159 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1902

In Tulare County v. May, 118 Cal. 309 , the section last quoted was held constitutional, and that the deputies were entitled to the salary therein provided. … (Freeman v.

People v. Gzikowski

32 Cal. 3d 580 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1982

People v. … Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 374, 376, fn. 1 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 648 , 525 P.2d 88 ]; Burns v. Brown, supra, 27 Cal.2d 631, 636 .) However, it cannot refuse to make that assessment.

People v. Disbrow

16 Cal. 3d 101 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1976

{Brown v. Mississippi (1936) 297 U.S. 278 [ 80 L.Ed. 682 , 56 S.Ct. 461 ].) … We do not reflect adversely on those decisions but merely recognize the increased sophistication of the concept as it progressed from its roots in the brutal torture practiced in Brown. In People v.

Rochat v. Gee

137 Cal. 497 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1902

(Rochat v. Gee, 91 Cal. 355 .) This first account was considered in disposing o£ the final account. … (In re Moore, 88 Cal. 3 ; Thompson v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 136 U. S. 287 ; Brown v.

People v. Hovey

44 Cal. 3d 543 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1988

(California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 546 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934, 943 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ] (O’Connor, J., conc.), italics added.)

People v. Gullick

55 Cal. 2d 540 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1961

An officer testified that Robinson described his assailants as “Two male Negroes, one five foot six and one five foot seven, one weighed 150 and the other 152; they both had black hair; eyes, color unknown: One wearing brown … Proc., § 1847; People v. Cowan, 38 Cal.App.2d 231, 242 [ 101 P.2d 125].)

Byington v. Sacramento Valley West Side Canal Co.

170 Cal. 124 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1915

This was decided in Haese v. … They cite in support of that contention such cases as Cozzens v. North Fork Ditch Co., 2 Cal. App. 405, [84 Pac. 342]; South Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co., 152 Cal. 587 , [ 93 Pac. 490 ]; and Orcutt v.

People v. Silveria and Travis

267 Cal. Rptr. 3d 303 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 2020

(Brown v. Sanders (2006) 546 U.S. 212, 220; see id. at pp. 214–215.) In Brown v. … In Brown v.

Rialto Irrigating District v. Brandon

103 Cal. 384 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1894

The act provides for the construction of a “system of works” to irrigate the lands within the district, and by section 12 the board is given the right to acquire property “necessary for the construction, use, supply, maintenance … (Crall v. Poso Irr. Dist., 87 Cal. 140 .) 3.

Kohler v. Agassiz

99 Cal. 9 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1893

Co. v. Johnson, 93 Cal. 538 ; 27 Am. St. Rep. 215 ; West v. Crawford, 80 Cal. 19 .) … Co. v. Callender, 94 Cal. 120 ; 28 Am. St. Rep. 99 , the contract was to pay “at such times and in such manner as may be determined by the board of directors of said corporation to be hereafter chosen.”

Bickel v. City of Piedmont

16 Cal. 4th 1040 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1997

Governing Board (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 314, 322 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 812 ]; see Civ. Code, § 3513). … Brown, Jr., contained in Governor’s chaptered bill file, ch. 1113 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.).)

McCoulou v. Vejar

212 Cal. 49 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1931

In this connection see Benjamin v. Noonan, 207 Cal. 279, 282, 283 [ 277 Pac. 1045 ] ; Krause v. Rarity, 210 Cal. 644 [ 293 Pac. 62 ] ; Buzby v. Lewis, 103 Cal. App. 124, 126, 127 [ 283 Pac. 958 ] ; Armstrong v. … App. 465, 471 [ 284 Pac. 1083 ] ; Davis v. Brown, 92 Cal.

Malone v. Johnson

5 Cal. Unrep. 575 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1897

The contract of April 1, 1891, which superseded that of March 31, 1887, was the ground of the claim made against defendant in both complaints: Anderson v. Mayers, 50 Cal. 525 . … Bank v. Ginty, 108 Cal. 148, 153 , 41 Pac. 38 ; Brown v. Warren, 43 N. H. 430. See Spreckels v. Bank, 113 Cal. 272 , 54 Am. St. Rep. 348 , 33 L. R. A. 459, 45 Pac. 329, 331 .

Murdock v. Murdock

7 Cal. 511 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

In the case of Williams v. … It was ruled in Juives v.

Mooney v. Pickett

4 Cal. 3d 669 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1971

A. v. … Welfare v. County of L.

People v. Amezcua & Flores

243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 842 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 2019

(Uttecht v. Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 9.) … in any proceeding of any nature, including proceedings before agencies, commissions, boards, and tribunals.”

In Re Wells

35 Cal. 2d 889 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1950

(See Howard v. Kentucky (1906), supra, p. 176 of 200 U.S.; State v. … In People v.

Lawrence National Bank v. Kowalsky

105 Cal. 41 · California Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1894

Kansas, in the full sum of fifteen hundred and ninety ($1,590) dollars, as and for the purchase price of four hundred cases *43 of eggs theretofore sold by the said Pendleton, to the said defendant, and delivered free on board … Dec. 247 ; 1 Daniel on Negotiable In *44 struments, 4th ed., sec. 20; Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 92 ; 73 Am.

Crockett Land & Cattle Co. v. American Toll Bridge Co.

211 Cal. 361 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1931

This court held in McCarty v. Southern Pac. … (North Fork Water Co. v. Edwards, 121 Cal. 662 [ 54 Pac. 69 ]; Hamaker v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 59 Cal. App. 642 [ 211 Pac. 265 ].)

Kirkpatrick v. Roderick P.

7 Cal. 3d 801 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1972

As Bassett [People v. … In People v.