Case law

City & County of San Francisco v. Itsell

80 Cal. 57 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1889

In Hoadley v. … (See Arrington v. Tupper, 10 Cal. 465 ; McCullough v. Clark, 41 Cal. 302 .) We therefore advise that the judgment be affirmed. Foote, C., and Gibson, C., concurred. The Court.

French v. French

17 Cal. 2d 775 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1941

referred to as “retainer pay” (39 Stats, at Large, chap. 417, p. 590), and has been said to be compensation “for the obligation on the part of such members to serve in the Navy in time of war or national emergency” (Sawyer v. … The eases of Crossan v. Crossan, 35 Cal. App. (2d) 39 [ 94 Pac. (2d) 609 ], and Dryden v. Board of Pension Commrs., 6 Cal. (2d) 575 [ 59 Pac. (2d) 104 ], are therefore not in point.

Auzerais v. Naglee

74 Cal. 60 · California Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1887

In Brown v. … (Bowman v. Earle, 3 Duer, 691 ; Chrysler v. James, 1 Hill, 214 ; Brown v. Williams, 4 Wend. 360, 368 ; Starkweather v. Kittle, 17 Wend. 20 ; Gay v. Cary, 9 Cow. 44 ; Ryckman v. Haight, 15 Johns. 222 .)

Santos v. Santos

185 Cal. 127 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1921

(Forbes v. Hyde, 31 Cal. 342, 348 ; Baldwin v. … (Guardianship of Akers, 184 Cal. 514 , [ 194 Pac. 707 ]; Ex parte Brown, 98 Kan. 663 , [ 159 Pac. 405 ].)

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. Carlton

57 Cal. 83 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

Poole, the gentleman that was boarding there, came and told him (deceased) of the article—told him that Mr. … The same doctrine in respect to threats not communicated is adopted in People v. Scoggins, 37 Cal. 676 , and in People v. Alvitre, 55 id. 263.

People v. Coleman

38 Cal. 3d 69 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1985

In Board of Education v. … Board of Trustees v. Porini (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 784 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 73 ], came to a different conclusion about the use of hearsay.

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 ].)

Giddens v. State Bar

28 Cal. 3d 730 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1981

(Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners (1968) 68 Cal.2d 67, 75 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 435 P.2d 553 ].) The Legislature has also protected accused attorneys by providing certain procedural requirements in its statutes. … (Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 908, 918 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 553 P.2d 565 ]. See Yokozeki v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 436, 448 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 602 , 521 P.2d 858 ]; Goldberg v.

Hart v. Burnett

15 Cal. 530 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

In Cohas v. … In Doe v.

People v. Salcido

44 Cal. 4th 93 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2008

(Uttecht v. Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 9 [ 167 L.Ed.2d 1014 , 127 S.Ct. 2218, 2224 ] (Uttecht).) … Robinson (2005) 37 Cal.4th 592, 641-642 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 760 , 124 P.3d 363 ] (Robinson); People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ] (Brown).) 3.

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.

Minardi v. Collopy

49 Cal. 2d 348 · California Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1957

(Bastajian v. Brown, 19 Cal.2d 209, 214 [ 120 P.2d 9 ].) In order to entitle Castle to the relief sought it is not enough to show merely that the order of January 11 resulted from judicial error. … (Phelan v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 363, 373-374 [ 217 P.2d 951 ].)

Martin Ship Service Co. v. City of Los Angeles

34 Cal. 2d 793 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1950

(National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 37-41 [ 57 S.Ct. 615 , 81 L.Ed. 893 , 108 A.L.R. 1352 ]; United States v. … (South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177, 184-185 [ 58 S.Ct. 510 , 82 L.Ed. 734 ]; Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Board of R. R.

Ex Parte Lorenzen

128 Cal. 431 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1900

The Indiana ease cited in the opinion as to the selling of liquor is opposed to the later case of Commonwealth v. … I fully indorse the doctrine of United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482 , as to the stop *443 page of the United States mails.

Spieker v. Lash

102 Cal. 38 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1894

(Sperry v. Percival Milling Co., 81 Cal. 258 ; Pierce v. Guittard, 68 Cal. 68 ; 58 Am. Rep. 1 .) … (McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 251 ; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 542 . See, also, Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Baumbach, 32 Fed. Rep. 212; California Fig Syrup Co. v. Improved Fig Syrup Co., 51 Fed.

In Re Moser

6 Cal. 4th 342 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1993

(See Santobello v. … (See Carter v.

Pennybecker v. McDougal

48 Cal. 160 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

In Collins v. … (Sands v. Pfeiffer, 10 Cal. 258 ; Tyler v. Decker, Id. 435; Merritt v. Judd, 14 Id. 59). The Court, therefore, erred in awarding to the plaintiff the value of the cabin.

Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club

California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2025

Once the vessel had been lowered into the water, Ranger boarded to unlock the vessel from the boom and moor it to the dock. … Club negligently failed to provide Ranger with adequate training, policies and procedures for safe docking and boarding, and safe access to the vessel.

Webb v. Vercoe

201 Cal. 754 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1927

Such considerations constitute the foundation of almost every trust, and the trustee should be held to account as nearly as possible in the same spirit in which he originally contracted.’ ” In the ease of Brown v. … The rule is stated in Brown v. Spencer, 163 Cal. 592, 593 [ 126 Pac. 493 ], and many of our decisions in which may be found illustrations of the applications of the rule, are there cited.” *763 In the case of Parker v.