Case law

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. 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.

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.)

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.

People v. Jordan

42 Cal. 3d 308 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1986

Gossman (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 184, 195 [ 126 P.2d 178 ]; Brown v. Newby (1940) 39 Cal.App.2d 615, 618 [ 103 P.2d 1018 ]; see also 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) §§ 275-281, pp. 286-293.) … (See People v. Brown (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 728, 744 [ 215 Cal.Rptr. 465 ]; People v. Benton (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 92, 102 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 12 ].)

Lynch v. Birdwell

44 Cal. 2d 839 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1955

Although it is of course true that the isolated act of driving at an excessive speed does not constitute wilful misconduct (Robertson v. Brown (1940), 37 Cal.App.2d 189, 193 [ 99 P.2d 288 ]; Stacey v. … (See Crowe v. Sacks (1955), ante, pp. 590, 597 [ 283 P.2d 689 ]; Brown v. Regan (1938), 10 Cal.2d 519, 523 [75 P.2d 1063]; Broome v. Kern Valley Packing Co. (1935), 6 Cal.App.2d 256, 261-262 [ 44 P.2d 430 ]; Brand v.

Martin v. Hall

219 Cal. 334 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1933

(Zellner v. Wass man, 184 Cal. 80, 88 [ 193 Pac. 84 ] ; see, also, Brown v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irr. Dist., 183 Cal. 186 [ 190 Pac. 797 ]; Harris & Hull, Inc., v. McCarty etc. Corp., 102 Cal. … In Zellner v.

Hamilton v. City and County of San Francisco

168 Cal. 793 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1914

The plaintiffs herein sued to recover the aggregate amounts of certain taxes respectively levied for three specific purposes by the defendant’s board of supervisors for the fiscal year 1907-8. … The taxes so levied are the same as those involved in the case of Josselyn v. San Francisco, (S. F. No. 6074), ante, p. 436, [ 143 Pac. 705 ], decided by this court on October 2, 1914.

Beckwith v. Sheldon

168 Cal. 742 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1914

Of these only five are to the point, —namely, Mattox v. Craig, 2 Bibb. (Kv.) 584; Cole v. Ross, 48 Ky. 393 , [ 50 Am. Dec. 517 ] ; McDonald v. Hodge, 5 Hayw. (Tenn.) 85; Meason v. Phillips, Add. (Pa.) 346, and Edgar v. … When it thereupon refused to perform the obligation, the promise became an absolute money obligation and the value of the bonds was immaterial,, or at all events-the payment in money became immediately due (Brown v.

People v. Nation

26 Cal. 3d 169 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1980

The victim later testified that it was getting dark at this time and what she remembered most about the assailant was his long reddish brown hair and beard. … (People v.

People v. Howard

44 Cal. 3d 375 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1988

The United States Supreme Court, reviewing our opinion in Brown , recently held that such an instruction is not, in and of itself, error. (California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 ].) … (People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 544 .) It was also made clear that a single mitigating factor could support a determination that death was not the appropriate penalty.

Elliott v. County of Los Angeles

183 Cal. 472 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1920

Co. v. Canty, 141 Cal. 695 , [75 Pac. 564]; Vallejo etc. R. Co. v. … (Tyler v. Tehama County, 109 Cal. 621 , [ 42 Pac. 240 ]; Reardon v. San Francisco, 66 Cal. 492 , [ 56 Am. Rep. 109 , 6 Pac. 317 ]; Perkins v. Blouth, 163 Cal. 789 , [ 127 Pac. 50 ]; Sala v.

Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. Wackenreuder

111 Cal. 471 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1896

Plaintiff answered the mortgagor's proposition by the following resolution of its board of directors: “Application No. 11, V. Wackenreuder, for a renewal of his loan of June 29, 1881, at six per cent.

Irvine v. Gibson

19 Cal. 2d 14 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1941

(Rogers v. Board of Directors of Pasadena, 218 Cal. 221 [ 22 Pac. (2d) 509 ]; Hitch v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. App. (2d) 406 [ 38 Pac. (2d) 190 ]; 16 Cal. Jur. 768.) … City of Los Angeles, 8 Cal. (2d) 748 [ 68 Pac. (2d) 707 ]; Northrup v. Haynes, 15 Cal. App. (2d) 665 [ 59 Pac. (2d) 1056 ]; Coon v. Biscailuz, 1 Cal. App. (2d) 346 [ 36 Pac. (2d) 430 ]; Potomac Oil Co. v. Dye, 10 Cal.

People v. Hickman

204 Cal. 470 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1928

Subject to the limitations noted, it may avail itself of the wisdom gathered by experience to make such changes as may be necessary. ( Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172 , 175 [ 44 L.Ed. 119 , 20 Sup. Ct. … Rep. 350]; Brown v. New Jersey, supra, p. 177 .)