Case law

Carpenter v. Furrey

128 Cal. 665 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1900

(Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 638 ; People v. Superior Court, 100 Cal. 120 ; Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 150 ; San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 30 .) … Co. v. Falls, 90 Tenn. 466 .) 3.

Fox Bakersfield Theatre Corp. v. City of Bakersfield

36 Cal. 2d 136 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1950

(Perry v. Jordan, 34 Cal.2d 87 [ 207 P.2d 47 ]; Brown v. Jordan, 12 Cal.2d 75 [ 82 P.2d 450 ]; Epperson v. Jordan, 12 Cal.2d 61 [ 82 P.2d 445 ]; California Teachers’ Assn. v. … As said in Brown v.

Peery v. City of Los Angeles

187 Cal. 753 · California Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1922

Bank v. Escondido Irr. … In the case of Wallace v.

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.

City of San Diego v. Superior Court

36 Cal. 2d 483 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1950

(Cf., Phelan v. … Trusheim, 25 Cal.2d 913, 916 [ 156 P.2d 25 ]; Barlow v. City Council of Inglewood, 32 Cal.2d 688 [ 197 P.2d 721 ]; Bastajian v. Brown, 19 Cal.2d 209 [ 120 P.2d 9 ]; Most Worshipful Lodge v. Sons etc.

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.

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.)

Rangel v. Interinsurance Exchange

4 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1992

(Cothron v. … Labor Code section 4903 itemizes the liens that the appeals board allows against a compensation award.

Beagle v. Vasold

65 Cal. 2d 166 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1966

Dunn *174 (1962) 140 Mont. 181 [ 368 P.2d 917 ] ; Johnson v. Brown (1959) 75 Nev. 437 [ 345 P.2d 754 ]; Grossnickle v. Village of Germantown (1965) 3 Ohio St.2d 96 [ 209 N.E.2d 442 ]; Edwards v. … Counsel assumes “the risk of overpersuasion” (Brown, J., in Hall v. Burkert (1962) 117 Ohio App. 527 [ 193 N.E.2d 167, 169 ]).

Alexander v. Superior Court

5 Cal. 4th 1218 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1993

Recently, in Ng v. … If the legislature intended the privilege to extend only to documents created by the board or committee, then surely that is what it would have said.” (Cruger v. Love (Fla. 1992) 599 So.2d 111, 114 .)

Commercial Bank of Spanish America, Ltd. v. Superior Court

192 Cal. 395 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1923

(Otis v. Superior Court, 148 Cal. 129 [ 82 Pac. 853 ] ; People v. Latimer, 160 Cal. 716 [ 117 Pac. 1051 ] ; Hotaling v. Superior Court, 191 Cal. 501 [29 A. L. R. 127, 217 Pac. 73 ] ; Fletcher v. … (See, also, Hill v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. App. 424 [131. Pac. 1061] ; Hayes v. Board of Trustees, 6 Cal. App. 520 [ 92 Pac. 492 ].) It follows that the remedy of the petitioner, E.

La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co.

9 Cal. 4th 27 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1994

In responding to Saleh’s complaint, the Trust raised as an affirmative defense the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. … Co. v.

People v. Garza

28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 335 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 2005

In People v. … In People v.

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.)

People v. Fields

62 Cal. 2d 538 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1965

Thus in Higgins v. … (See People v. Brown, 55 Cal.2d 64 , 71 et seq. [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 816 , 357 P.2d 1072 ] [Traynor, J., concurring].) For the above reasons defendant is entitled to have counsel appointed to represent him on his appeal.

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. Tuilaepa

4 Cal. 4th 569 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1992

Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ] (revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ]). … As noted, the instruction used language suggested by People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 541-542 , footnote 13.

Landsborough v. Kelly

1 Cal. 2d 739 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1934

(Wood v. Strother, 76 Cal. 545 [ 18 Pac. 766 , 9 Am. St. Rep. 249 ]; Tulare Water Co. v. State Water Com., 187 Cal. 533 [ 202 Pac. 874 ] ; Inglin v. Hoppin, 156 Cal. 483 [ 105 Pac. 582 ].) … The case of Stanley-Taylor Co. 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 ].)

Savings & Loan Society v. Burnett

106 Cal. 514 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1895

Not for the purpose of paying any thing, but to consolidate the debt, in the discretion of the president, without reference to the board.” Such is the unconflicting testimony. … (Hart v. Boller, 15 Serg. & R. 163; 16 Am. Dec. 536 ; Brown v. Dunckel, 46 Mich. 32 .) Here the circumstances, so far from raising a conflict, are in perfect adjustment to the acts and declarations of the parties.