Case law

American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren

16 Cal. 4th 307 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1997

Philip Damey, a board-certified specialist in obstetrics and gynecology. Defendants are the Attorney General of the State of California and the district attorneys of each California county. … Contrary to the suggestion in Justice Brown’s dissent (dis. opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 423, fn. 3), the paragraph in Casey that follows the above passage ( Casey, supra, 505 U.S. 833, 895 [ 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2829-2830 ]

People v. Izaguirre

64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 148 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2007

He argues that under the high court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (Apprendi ), as interpreted by this court in People v. … [Citation.]' ( Brown v. Ohio (1977) 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 , italics added.)

Morgan v. Southern Pac. Co.

17 L.R.A. 71 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1892

Co. v. Vandever, 36 Pa. St. 298; Iron Co. v. Rupp, 100 Pa. St. 95; R. R. Co. v. Freeman, 36 Ark. 41 ; R. R. Co. v. Brown, 26 Kan. 443 ; 40 Am. Rep. 320 ; Penn. Co. v. Lilly, 73 Ind. 252 ; Donaldson v. R. R. … Co. v. Paulk, 24 Ga. 356 ; R. R. Co. v. Miller, 2 Col. 466 ; Kesler v. *517 Smith, 66 N. C. 154 ; Marche. Walker, 48 Tex. 372 ; R.R. Co. v. Levey, 59 Tex. 563 ; 46 Am. Rep. 278 ; James v. Christy, 18 Mo. 162 ; Hyatt v.

Wasatch Property Management v. Degrate

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2005

v. … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Allen v. McKinley

18 Cal. 2d 697 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1941

They cite cases for the rule that administrative action of local boards is beyond judicial control unless abuse of discretion is clearly shown. (Maxwell v. … Wilson, Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, in the case of Crowe v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners, L. A. No. 427,601, is quoted in full.

Legislature v. Reinecke

9 Cal. 3d 166 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1973

(Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 6 Cal.3d 595, 604 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 481 , 492 P.2d 385 ] as modified (1972) 7 Cal.3d 92, 93 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 552 , 496 P.2d 464 ].)

Garber v. Levit

46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 348 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 2006

THE BIERMAN AMENDMENT AND PROPOSITION G On September 22, 1998, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (Board of Supervisors) amended the Rent Ordinance by implementing San Francisco Ordinance No. 293-98, otherwise known as … (See People v.

Sheehan v. Scott

145 Cal. 684 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1905

The rule declared in Searcy v. … (People v.

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.

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.)

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.)

Mark Hopkins, Inc. v. California Employment Commission

24 Cal. 2d 744 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1944

(Loud v. Luse, 214 Cal. 10, 12 [ 3 P.2d 542 ]; Robinson v. Raquel, 1 Cal.App.2d 533, 541 [ 36 P.2d 821 ].) … This question is decided adversely to them in Matson Terminals, Inc., v.

In Re Chavez

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 54 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 2003

(In re Brown, supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 683 ; see Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d at pp. 62-63.) … (People 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.

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.

Whitcomb Hotel, Inc. v. California Employment Commission

24 Cal. 2d 753 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1944

Superior Court, 17 Cal.2d 707, 712 [ 112 P. 2d 10 ]; Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners, 21 Cal.2d 399, 402 [ 132 P.2d 804 ].) … Board of Administration, 34 Cal.App.2d 514, 521 [ 93 P.2d 1046 , 94 A.L.R. 610 ].)

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.

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 .)