Case law

Estate of Ferrall

33 Cal. 2d 202 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1948

(Stringer v. Young, 191 N.Y. 157, 166 [ 83 N.E. 690 ]; Clay v. Hamilton, 116 Ind.App. 214, 221 [ 63 N.E. 207 ]; Hendrick v. … Brown, 218 Mass. 33, 35 [ 105 N.E. 637 ]; see Estate of Hubbell, 121 Cal.App. 38, 40 [ 8 P.2d 530 ]; Fletcher v. Los Angeles Trust & Savings Bank, 182 Cal. 177, 185 [ 187 P. 425 ]; Peoples Bank of Bloomington v.

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.

Berroteran v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2022

SC20130071); (2) Dokken v. Ford Motor Co. (Super. Ct. Sutter County, No. CVCS131994); and (3) Brown v. Ford Motor Company (Super. Ct. … The final deposition, conducted in June 2017 in connection with Brown v. Ford Motor Company (see ante, fn. 5), reflects substantial discussion about its intended future use.

In Re Romero

207 Cal. 341 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1929

This contention is based entirely upon the decision in the case of Robertson v. Langford, 95 Cal. App. 414 [ 273 Pac. 150 ], rendered December 13, 1928. … This was held in the recent case of Platnauer v. Board of Supervisors, 65 Cal.

CBS, INC. v. Block

42 Cal. 3d 646 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1986

(Cohen v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 40 Cal.3d 277, 286 , quoting IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 69-70 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 715 , 672 P.2d 121 ]; accord Robbins v. … (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 286-287.)

Allen v. California Water & Telephone Co.

31 Cal. 2d 104 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1947

(Braun v. Brown, 13 Cal.2d 130, 133 [ 87 P.2d 1009 ]; Baines v. West Coast Lumber Co., 104 Cal. 1 [ 37 P. 767 ].) … Superior Court. 168 Cal. 727 [ 145 P. 101 ]); it must be “direct and not consequential” (Isaacs v. Jones, 121 Cal. 257, 261 [ 53 P. 793, 1101 ]). See, also, Bechtel v.

Clark v. City of Los AngeLes

160 Cal. 30 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1911

Ed. 353 ]; Mayrhofer v. Board, 89 Cal. 112 , [ 23 Am. St. Rep. 451 , 26 P. 646 ]; Skelly v. School Dist., 103 Cal. 655 , [ 37 P. 643 ]; Witter v. School Dist., 121 Cal. 350 , [ 66 Am. St. Rep. 33 , 53 P. 905 ].) … (Frost v. Central City, 134 Ky. 434 , [ 120 S.W. 367 ]; Austin v. Valle, (Tex. Civ. App.) 71 S.W. 414 ; Dudley v. Lake, 80 Fed. 677 , [ 26 C.C.A. 82 ]; Corning v. Meade Co., 102 Fed. 57 , [ 42 C.C.A. 154 ]; Board v.

Aloy v. Mash

38 Cal. 3d 413 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1985

In Smith v. … (Milhan v. Milhan (1975) 421 U.S. 976 .) Nothing in the Aloy v.

Hart v. Burnett

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

In Cohas v. … In Doe v.

McLane v. Placerville & Sacramento Valley R.R.

66 Cal. 606 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1885

These powers are given to boards of directors, and are usually exercised by a quorum, which, unless changed by statute or by-law, is a majority of the board. … Co. v.

People Ex Rel. Peck v. City of Los Angeles

154 Cal. 220 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1908

(See, also, People v. Ontario, 148 Cal. 625 , [ 84 Pac. 205 ].) … (People v. City of Oakland, 123 Cal. 598, 602 , [56 Pac. 445]; People v. Ontario, 148 Cal. 625 , [ 84 Pac. 205 ].)

Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Dunbar

80 Cal. 530 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1889

Code, secs. 1460-1466; *535 Cole v. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444 ; 13 Am. Rep. 611 ; Bloch v. Isham, 28 Ind. 37 ; 92 Am. Dec. 287 ; Scott v. McMillan, 76 N. Y. 144 .) … Proc., sec. 1951; Brown v. Griffith, 70 Cal. 14 .) It is otherwise under the code as amended. (Stats. 1889, p. 45.) There was a motion for a nonsuit, which was denied.

Engel v. Davenport

194 Cal. 344 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1924

This theory was sustained by decisions of the supreme court of New York (Nox v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 193 N. Y. Supp. 340 ; Prieto v. … United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 117 Misc. Rep. 703 [ 193 N. Y. Supp. 342 ]), and of the district court of Washington (Wenzler v. Robin Line S. S. Co., 277 Fed. 812 ).

In Re Polizzotto

188 Cal. 410 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1922

The petitioner is imprisoned in the county jail of Stanislaus County upon a charge of violating an ordinance adopted by the board of supervisors of said county on January 19, 1921, declaring it to be a mis *411 demeanor for … App. 229 [ 199 Pac. 1090 ]; Ex parte Crookshank, 269 Fed. 980 ; Woods v. City of Seattle, 270 Fed. 315 . [4] 3.

Peccolo v. City of Los Angeles

8 Cal. 2d 532 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1937

(Parrett v. Carothers, 11 Cal. App. (2d) 222 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 1023 ]; Jensen v. Hansen, 12 Cal. … In Bryant v. Pacific Elec. Ry.

People v. Lamson

1 Cal. 2d 648 · California Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1934

Brown. Later the undertaker arrived, and a little later Dr. … This rule is elementary and is aptly restated in the case of People v.

People v. Kelly

1 Cal. 4th 495 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1992

He relies primarily on language in People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], reversed on related grounds sub nomine California v. … (People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 117 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 276 , 806 P.2d 1311 ]; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].)

Hartwell Corporation v. Superior Court

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 874 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 2002

In Waters v. … WE CONCUR: GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, BROWN and MORENO, JJ.

Leoni v. State Bar

39 Cal. 3d 609 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1985

Pharmacy Board v. Va. Consumer Council (1976) 425 U.S. 748 [ 48 L.Ed.2d 346 , 96 S.Ct. 1817 ] applies to regulation of advertising by lawyers. (Zauderer v. … Pharmacy Board v. Va. Consumer Council (1976) 425 U.S. 748, 773, fn. 25 [ 48 L.Ed.2d 346, 365 , 96 S.Ct. 1817 ].) This court analyzed the above quoted language in Jacoby v.

People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Superior Court

26 Cal. 3d 744 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1980

Corp. v. Board of Elections (1957) 2 N.Y.2d 413 [ 161 N.Y.S.2d 52, 54 , 141 N.E.2d 565, 566 ]; Hennington v. Valuch (1963) 19 Wis.2d 260 [ 120 N.W.2d 44, 45-46 ]; Royal Car Wash Co. v. Mayor & Council of W. … (Olsen v. Jones, supra, 209 N.W.2d 64, 67 ; see, e.g., Cotham v. Board of County Commissioners, supra, 273 A.2d 115, 120-121 .)