Case law

People v. Beatty

14 Cal. 566 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

The case of The People v. Mullins, ( 10 Cal. 20 ,) is not opposed to this view. The indictment in that case was entitled of the county of Sacramento, and this was held proper. … Brown, District Attorney.” *573 In reply to the criticism of the counsel, we think it unnecessary to say more than that we consider the indictment good under the statute, as it states, with all necessary definiteness, the

People v. Love

56 Cal. 2d 720 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1961

The court did not err in dismissing defendant’s subpoena for Governor Brown and Warden Duffy. Defendant voluntarily dismissed the subpoena for Warden Duffy. … He had subpoenaed Governor Brown to elicit his views on capital punishment. The penalties for first degree murder have been fixed by the Legislature. (Pen. Code, § 190.)

Bell v. Hudson

73 Cal. 285 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1887

(Harwood v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 81 ; Sullivan v. Portland etc., 94 U. S. 811 ; Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201 ; Sheldon v. Rockwell, 9 Wis. 181 ; S. C., 76 Am. Dec. 265 ; Harrison v. Gibson, 23 Gratt. 212 ; Stout v. … (Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 95 U. S. 160 ; Rayner v. Pearsall, 3 Johns. Ch. *586; Landrum v.

Barkly v. Copeland

74 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1887

(See Willover v. Hill, 72 N. Y. 36 ; Hatfield v. Lasher, 81 N. Y. 249 .) … We cite the following cases: Brown v. Barnes, 39 Mich. 211 ; Hayner v. Cowden, 27 Ohio St. 292 ; 22 Am. Rep. 303 ; Bennett v. Hyde, 6 Conn. 24 ; Buckley v. Knapp, 48 Mo. 153 ; Hosley v.

Colgrove v. Smith

27 L.R.A. 590 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1894

For a full discussion of the general doctrine above stated see Boswell v. Laird, 8 Cal. 469 ; 68 Am. Dec. 345 . But there are exceptions to the general doctrine, and this case, we think, is one of them. … The board of trustees of the city was charged by the law with the care and maintenance of the streets in a safe and proper condition for the use of the public.

Willson v. Cleaveland

30 Cal. 192 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1866

(Stearns v. Aguirre, 7 Cal. 443 ; Kelly v. Van Austin, 17 Cal. 564 ; Glidden v. Packard 28 Cal. 651 .) … (Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 671 .) V. Nor did the Court err in allowing the defendant to prove abandonment of the premises by the plaintiff, because an abandonment was not pleaded.

Hamilton v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

33 Cal. 2d 202 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1948

(Stringer v. Young, 191 N.Y. 157, 166 [ 83 N.E. 690 ] ; Clay v. Hamilton, 116 Ind.App. 214, 221 [ 63 N.E. 207 ]; Hendrick v. … Brown, 218 Mass. 33, 35 [ 105 N.E. 637 ]; see Estate of Hubbell, 121 Cal.App. 38, 40 [ 8 P.2d 530 ]; Fletcher v. Los Angeles Trust & Savings Bank, 182 Cal. 177,185 [ 187 P. 425 ]; Peoples Bank of Bloomington v.

Sheets v. Southern Pacific Co.

1 Cal. 2d 408 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1934

As stated in the last ease above cited [Brown v. New York Cent. Ry. Co., 32 N. Y. 597 ( 88 Am. … (Klauber v. San Diego Street Car Co., 98 Cal. 105 [ 32 Pac. 876 ]; Ellis v. Witmer, 148 Cal. 528 [ 83 Pac. 800 ]; 2 Cal. Jur., pp. 944, 1042.)

Dietzel v. Anger

8 Cal. 2d 373 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1937

(See Carson v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 73 Fed. (2d) 397; *377 Lidgerwood v. Hale & Kilburn Corp., 47 Fed. (2d) 318; Craig v. Consolidated Cement Corp., 69 Fed. (2d) 613; Allan v. … (Brown v. Denver Omnibus & Cab Co., 254 Fed. 560, 569 ; see, also, 41 Yale L. J. 774; 27 Columb. L. Rev. 579; 2 Jones, Bonds and Bond Securities, sec. 1153, p. 561.) But no such circumstances are presented here.

People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler

60 Cal. 4th 335 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 2014

(Uttecht v. Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 22 [ 167 L.Ed.2d 1014 , 127 S.Ct. 2218 ].)” (People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 790-791, fn. 3 [ 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 533 , 269 P.3d 1109 ] (Thomas).) 1. … (See People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 475 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].) 2.

George v. Law

1 Cal. 363 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1851

with any other settee in that part of the vessel—that in consequence of this deficiency, and the crowded condition of the ship, she being provided with accommodation for but. three hundred passengers, and there being on board … In view of this the verdict of the jury must be considered as having settled all the facts of the case. *365 In the case of Payne v. P. M. S. S.

People v. Carter

135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 553 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 2003

(People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 446-448 [250 *1222 Cal.Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135 ].) … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurred.

Flinn & Treacy v. Mowry

131 Cal. 481 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1901

(Duff v. Duff, 101 Cal. 1 . ) 3. … San Francisco v. Buckman, 111 Cal. 25 , is relied upon in support of this contention.

Phillips v. Sanger Lumber Co.

130 Cal. 431 · California Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1900

There was no resolution of the board of directors of the defendant especially directing or authorizing the making of the note. … (Waterman on Corporations, sec. 30; Greig v. Riordan, 99 Cal. 322 ; Crowley v. Genesee Co., 55 Cal. 273 .)

People v. Blodgett

46 Cal. 2d 114 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1956

Brown, Attorney General, Clarence A. Linn, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Victor Griffith, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. TRAYNOR, J. … (People v. Brown, 45 Cal.2d 640 [ 290 P.2d 528 ]; People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645 [ 290 P.2d 531 ].)

Thomas v. Desmond

63 Cal. 426 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 1883

intemperate and dissolute habits of her husband, acting under the advice of counsel, asserted her claim over all his property, took possession of it and invested it in the business of letting furnished rooms, Avith or Avithout board … Proc; Green v. Palmer, 15 Cal. 410 ; Piercy v. Sabin, 10 Cal. 27 ; Grewell v. Walden, 23 Cal. 165 ; Moore v. Murdock, 26 Cal. 514 ; Miles v. McDermott, 31 Cal. 271 .) The complaint was, therefore, demurrable.

Siskin v. Alliance Insurance

200 Cal. 70 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1926

(Mah See v. North Am. Acc. Ins. Co., 190 Cal. 424 [26 A. L. R. 123, 213 Pac. 42 ] ; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 178 Cal. 494 [ 173 Pac. 993 ]; Greer-Robbins Co. v. Insurance Co., 47 Cal. … Co. v. Sacramento-Stockton S. S. Co., 273 Fed. 58 .)

Bashore v. Parker

146 Cal. 525 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1905

As is said in Goodale v. … (Manning v. Burke, 107 La. 456 ; Jacobs & Co. v. Scott, 53 Cal. 74 ; Chaffee v. Brown, 109 Cal. 211 .)

Irwin v. Scriber

18 Cal. 499 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

(See 13 Vt. 71 ; 15 Id. 344 ; 27 Id. 581; 28 Id. 667 ; Brown v. Gibson, 1 Nott & McCord, 326, and notes.) Andrews v. Avery ( 14 Gratt. 236 ) is a strong case. … (Fisher v. Bassett, 9 Leigh, 119 ; Burnley v. Duke, 2 Rob. 102 ; Schultz v. Schultz, 10 Gratt. 358 ; Cox v. Thomas, Adm’x, 11 Id. 323 ; Hutcheson v.

In Re Hoddinott

12 Cal. 4th 992 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1996

Jones, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d at p. 1456; People v. Ruster, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d at pp. 870-871; In re Brown, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at p. 665 ; People v. … (Butt v.