Case law

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 ].)

Price v. Civil Service Commission

26 Cal. 3d 257 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1980

(See Crawford v. Board of Education (1976) 17 Cal.3d 280, 301-302 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 551 P.2d 28 ].) … Only in the last quarter century, beginning with Brown v.

El Camino Irrigation District v. El Camino Land Corp.

12 Cal. 2d 378 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1938

Co. v. Chambers, 169 Cal. 131, 135 [ 145 Pac. 1025 ]; Meyer v. State Land Settlement Board, 104 Cal. App. 577, 585, 586 [ 286 Pac. 743 ]; People v. San Joaquin Valley Agr. … (Meyer v. State Land Settlement Board, supra, at p. 586.) There is another and conclusive answer to the contention of defendants, found in the terms of the Irrigation District Act.

Wagoner v. Silva

139 Cal. 559 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1903

In Pearis v. Covillaud, 6 Cal. 617 , 1 the plaintiff filed his bill for specific performance against Covillaud and others, on a contract to convey to him certain lots. … (Citing Dan v. Brown, 4 Cow. 483 . 1 ) The husband cannot be presumed to have been the agent of his wife in the management of her separate property from the mere fact of the married relation.

Coito v. Superior Court

54 Cal. 4th 480 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 2012

Brown re Bill No. 24, June 22, 1963, p. 1.) … Brown re Bill No. 24, July 2, 1963, p. 2.)

Merritt & Bourne v. Judd & Byrne

14 Cal. 59 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

(See The State v. Elliott, 11 N. H. 542; 2 Kent’s Com. 346; Lee v. Risdon, 7 Taunt. 183; Lyde v. Russell, 1 Barn. & Adol. 394, before cited; White v. Arnt, 1 Whart. 91 ; Gaffield v. Hapgood, 17 Pick. 192 ; Shepherd v. … So it is laid down in the Leading Cases, 212, and Naylor v. Collinge, 1 Taunt. 19; Perry v. Brown, 2 Stark. 403; Thrasher v. East London Water Works Co. 2 B. & C. 608; Earl of Mansfield v.

People v. Stanley

54 Cal. 4th 734 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2012

(Dina V., supra, at p. 489.) We agree with Dina V. … Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Charles A. French and Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Reina v. Cross

6 Cal. 29 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

That defendant received said freight on board his vessel and departed on the voyage, but did not perform his contract, because of the loss of said vessel at sea. … See also Samson v. Ball, 4 Dallas, 459 ; Giles v. Brig Cynthia, 1 Pet. Admr. R , 203, et seq.; Chinot v. Barker, 2 John. R., 346; Gillan v. Simkin, 4 Camp., 241; Harris v. Rand, 4 N. Hamp.

Stone v. Owens

105 Cal. 292 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1894

V. … V. Owens.”

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 .)

Eberhard v. Pacific Southwest Loan & Mortgage Corp.

215 Cal. 226 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1932

See Pollak v. Staunton, 210 Cal. 656 [ 293 Pac. 26 ], Mitchell v. Grass Valley Gold Mines Co., 206 Cal. 609 [ 275 Pac. 418 ], Tatterson v. Kehrlein, 88 Cal. App. 34 [ 263 Pac. 285 ], Castle v. … App. 94 [ 281 Pac. 396 ], and Hemmeon v. Amalgamated etc. Co., 95 Cal. App. 400 [ 273 Pac. 74 ].

People v. Miranda

44 Cal. 3d 57 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1987

Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 544, fn. 17 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 726 P.2d 516 ], reversed on other grounds sub nom. California v. Brown, supra, 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 ]. … (See People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 537, fn. 7.)

In Re Estate of Harkness

176 Cal. 537 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1917

(See McKinley v. Tuttle, 34 Cal. 235 .) … (People v. Sing Yow, 145 Cal. 1 , [ 78 Pac. 235 ]. See, also, *542 Estate of Emerson, 170 Cal. 81 , [ 148 Pac. 523 ]; People v. Oxnam, 170 Cal. 211 , [ 149 Pac. 165 ]; Atkinson v. Western Dev.

Lamb v. McMullen

157 Cal. 14 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1909

This case is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court in a proceeding in certiorari to review the proceedings of the board of supervisors of Orange County, whereby the Newbert Protection District was organized under … For the reasons given in the opinion in Keech v. Joplin, it should have been taken to the district court of appeal. That court has the appellate jurisdiction in certiorari proceedings.

People v. Snyder

32 Cal. 3d 590 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1982

(People v. Neese, supra, at p. 245 ; People v. McCullough (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 712, 718 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 591 ].) … (People v. O’Brien (1892) 96 Cal. 171, 176 [ 31 P. 45 ]; see Brown v. State Department of Health (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 548, 554-555 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 344 ], and cases cited.)

People v. Robles

23 Cal. 4th 789 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2000

BROWN, J. I concur in the determination to affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment reversing the denial of defendant’s suppression motion. … (See generally People v. Woods, supra, 21 Cal.4th 668, 692-696 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).)

In Re Estate of Espinosa

179 Cal. 189 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1918

(Cosgriff v. Board of Election Commrs., 151 Cal. 407 , [ 91 Pac. 98 ].) Appellant also denies the court’s jurisdiction because of the alleged insufficiency of the citation to inform him of the contents of the petition.

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.

Freeman v. Superior Court

44 Cal. 2d 533 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1955

Superior Court, 65 Cal. 187, 190-191 [ 3 P. 623 ]; Ex parte Brown, 66 Cal.App. 534, 537 [ 226 P. 650 ]), it is insufficient as evidence to sustain a contempt conviction, under the hearsay rule. (Gay v. … (People v. Milner, 122 Cal. 171, 179 [ 54 P. 833 ]; see People v. Agnew, 16 Cal.2d 655, 662-663 [ 107 P.2d 601 ].)

Morffew v. S.F. & San Rafael R.R.

107 Cal. 587 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1895

(Barker v. Stanford, 53 Cal. 451 ; Robinson v. Tickell, 8 Ves. 142; Cooper v. Thornton, 3 Brown Ch. 96, 186.) … (Andrews v. Emmot, 2 Brown Ch. 303.)