Case law

Vejar v. Mound City Land & Water Ass'n

97 Cal. 659 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1893

In their opinion in Dalton v. United States, the board of land commissioners state that the claimant has presented two grants: 1. One in which the property granted is designated by the name of San José; 2. … The board of land commissioners, in Dalton v.

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 ].)

People v. Bramit

46 Cal. 4th 1221 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2009

(Uttecht v. Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 7 [ 167 L.Ed.2d 1014 , 127 S.Ct. 2218 ]; see People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 779 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 211 , 187 P.3d 1041 ] (Wilson).) Defendant’s reliance on People v. … V, § 8, subd. (a)) and only upon consultation with the Board of Prison Terms (§§ 4802, 4812, 4813).

Ex parte Spencer

83 Cal. 460 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1890

The case of Eidenmuller v. Eidenmuller was based upon statutes entirely different from the provisions of our code. … In this state divorce is absolute; there is no such thing as divorce from bed and board under the law as it now exists. When • a marriage is dissolved, each party is relieved from all the obligations of the bond.

People v. Barnwell

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 82 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2007

Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 401 , 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ( Brown) . ) The death penalty is not unconstitutional for failing to impose a specific burden of proof as to the existence of aggravating circumstances, … (See, e.g., Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th 382 , 401, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 .) Nor do the high court's decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 , Ring v.

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.

Pacific Coast Dairy, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture

19 Cal. 2d 818 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1942

(Milk Control Board v. Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U. S. 346 [ 59 S. Ct. 528 , 83 L. Ed. 752 ]; Alabama v. King and Boozer, U. S. [ 62 S. Ct. 43 , L. Ed.]; James v. Bramo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134 [ 58 S. … (Milk Control Board v. Gosselin’s Dairy, Inc., 301 Mass. 174 [16 N. E. (2d) 641]; Paterson Milk & Cream Co., Inc. v. Milk Control Board, 118 N. J. L. 383 [ 192 Atl. 838 ]; Alabama v. King & Boozer, -- U. S. - [ 62 S.

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.

Stone v. Owens

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

V. … V. Owens.”

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 ].

Coan v. Superior Court

14 Cal. 2d 591 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1939

App. (2d) 730 [ 74 Pac. (2d) 298 ] ; Harth v. … (State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. (2d) 252 [ 70 Pac. (2d) 482 ] ; Casner v. Superior Court, supra.) The case of Zierath v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.

People v. Sivongxxay

219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 265 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2017

(People v. Brown (Ill. 1996) 661 N.E.2d 287, 297.) In the other, Commonwealth v. … In People v. Brown, supra, 661 N.E.2d 287 (Brown) and Commonwealth v.

Atwater Elementary School District v. California Department of General Services

41 Cal. 4th 227 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 2007

The first grants school boards the authority to suspend or dismiss a teacher. (Ed. Code, § 44932 et seq.) … (Superior Court v. County of Mendocino (1996) 13 Cal.4th 45, 53 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 837 , 913 P.2d 1046 ].)

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.).)

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. 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.)

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.)

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

16 Cal. 2d 169 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1940

(Everts v. Blaschko, 17 Cal. App. (2d) 188 [ 61 Pac. (2d) 776 ]; Matteson v. Klump, 100 Cal. App. 64 [ 279 Pac. 669 ] ; Goddard v. Security Title Ins. & Guar. Co., 14 Cal. (2d) 47, 52 [ 92 Pac. (2d) 804 ].) … (See Pendleton v. Hellman Commercial T. & S. Bank, 58 Cal. App. 448 [ 208 Pac. 702 ]; 11 Cal. L. Rev. 111 , 112; 7 Cal. L. Rev. 341 ; 38 Harv. L. Rev. 800 ; Brown on Personal Property, p. 519.)