Case law

Vargas v. City of Salinas

46 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Apr 20, 2009

In Stanson v. … Funds v.

Walsh v. Abbott

145 Cal. 285 · California Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1904

(Stark v. Bar rett, 15 Cal. 362 ; Moore v. Steinbach, 127 U. S. 70 .) … (Brannan v. Mesick, 10 Cal. 95 .) The first of these principles requires no special elucidation.

Craig v. Wade

159 Cal. 172 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1911

His contention is that upon the authority of such cases as Woodland v. Hiatt, 58 Cal. 234 ; Cruess v. Fessler, 39 Cal. 338 , and Loaiza v. Superior Court, 85 Cal. 11 , [ 20 Am. St. Rep. 197 , 9 L. R. … (complete).. 5 Value of pumping plants.'............. 3,000 Value of wells, 31, at $1,500...........46,500 Value of tools, supplies, etc............ 3,000 Value of real estate (town lots).........12,000 By order of the board

People v. Godlewski

22 Cal. 2d 677 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1943

(People v. Romero, supra; People v. Angelopoulos, 30 Cal.App.2d 538 [ 86 P.2d 873 ]; People v. Molinari, supra; In re Alpine, supra; Harrison v. … (Harris v. Municipal Court, supra; Rice v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 104 P.2d 874]; Ford v. Superior Court, supra.)

Ballerino v. Mason

83 Cal. 447 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1890

But for such an error the only remedy is by application to the board of equalization. (San José Gas Co., v. January, 57 Cal. 614 .) … The law applicable to the case as made was, in our opinion., correctly stated in Kendall v.

Takekawa v. Hole

170 Cal. 323 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1915

The court may always amend the entered judgment to make it conform to the decision which the court actually rendered (Homeseekers Loan Association v. Gleeson, 133 Cal. 312 , [ 65 Pac. 617 ] ; San Francisco v. … Bank of Fresno v. Dusy, 110 Cal. 70 , [ 42 Pac. 476 ] ; O’Brien v. O’Brien, 124 Cal. 428 , [ 57 Pac. 225 ].) Indisputably the amendment here made does change the judgment in important particulars.

Comfort v. Comfort

17 Cal. 2d 736 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1941

(Gross v. Gross, [N. J. Ch.] 180 Atl. 204 ; Haring v. Kauffman, 13 N. J. Eq. 397 [ 78 Am. Dec. 102 ]; Perlman v. Perlman, 113 N. J. Eq. 3 [ 165 Atl. 646 ]; Di Brigida v. Di Brigida, 116 N. J. … In Cardinale v.

In Re Smallbone

16 Cal. 2d 532 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1940

It was cited with approval in Yager v. Yager, 7 Cal. (2d) 213, 220 [ 60 Pac. (2d) 422 ]; Van Hoosear v. R. R. Commission, 189 Cal. 228, 233 [ 207 Pac. 903 ]; Bakeman v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. … (Weigold v. Weigold, 236 App. Div. 126 [ 258 N. Y. Supp. 348 ]; Zwingman v. Zwingman, 150 App. Div. 358 [ 134 N. Y. Supp. 1077 ]; Monck v. Monck, 184 App. Div. 656 [ 172 N. Y.

Goodall v. Jack

127 Cal. 258 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1899

Four years afterward—on or about the fifteenth day of May, 1894—the board of directors passed a resolution authorizing the president and secretary to make notes of the corporation, payable to plaintiffs in the amount of the … Proc., sec. 359; Bank v. Pacific etc. Co., 103 Cal. 594 ; Redington v. Cornwell, 90 Cal. 63 ; Winona Wagon Co. v. Bull, 108 Cal. 1 .)

People v. Morris

46 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1988

This letter, dated October 7, 1982, and signed by the Acting Chief of Police of Long *27 Beach, was addressed to the parole board. … In fact, neither of the letters to the parole board was revealed until a second search of the prosecutor’s file in August 1987.

People Ex Rel. Deparment of Corporations. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc.

86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 816 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1999

(Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 284, fn. 3 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 ]; see Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-310.) A simple conflicts check would have avoided the problem. (See Weil & Brown, Cal.

People v. Poggi

45 Cal. 3d 306 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1988

(See People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 536, fn. 6 [ 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 ]; People v. … In People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 538-544 , however, we rejected that very contention. Defendant presents us with no compelling reason to reconsider our holding.

MacDermot v. Grant

181 Cal. 332 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1919

(Hancock, Ditch Co. v. … Co. v. Hamilton County, 79 Fed. 575 , [ 25 C. C. A. 94 ]; Warner v. Warner, 83 Kan. 548, [ 112 Pac. 97 ]; Lawyers' etc. Pub. Co. v. Gordon, 173 Mo. 139 , [ 73 S. W. 155 ]; St. Louis Board of Education v.

Prager v. Isreal

15 Cal. 2d 89 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1940

As the plaintiff had one foot on the ground and the other on the running board, the ear moved forward, throwing her to the ground. … (Appeal of Houghton, 42 Cl. 35, 52; Drew v. Smith, 38 Cal. 325 333 ; Bourland v. Hildeth, 26 Cal. 161, 231 ; Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379, 393 .

Green v. State Bar

213 Cal. 403 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1931

The board of governors adopted the findings, but has recommended that petitioner be disbarred. This is a proceeding to review the action and recommendation of The State Bar. … In Bruns v.

Butler v. Harris

34 Cal. 210 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 2004

BROWN, J., Concurring and Dissenting. … (Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 86 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 49 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 ] (dis. opn. of Stevens, J.) (Troxel).)

Gassner v. Patterson

23 Cal. 299 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

(Chenyworth v. Daily, 7 Ind. 284 ; Divver v. McLaughlin, 2 Wend. 596 ; Clayborn v. Hill, 1 Wash. 177 ; Meyer v. Gorham, 5 Cal. 322 .) … (Smith v. Randall, 6 Cal. 50 ; Cole v. White, 24 Wend. 141 .) Besides, the plaintiff has not been injured in any way, by the inadequacy of price. It is the loss of the mortgagor, and not of the plaintiff.

Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group

127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 2002

(Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 725 [construing varying terminology in a single statute, Civ. Code, § 47].) We agree. … J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurred. All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise noted.

Frye v. Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc.

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 221 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 2006

(People v. … (NAACP v.

Jones v. Post

6 Cal. 102 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

When the order was presented, Thompson, to whom it was directed, was informed that the sheep were to be taken on board the steamer Sea Bird, on her return trip. … The effect of this we decided at the last Term, in the case of Sayre v. Nichols.