Case law

Ericksen v. Southern Pacific Co.

39 Cal. 2d 374 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1952

R. v. Brown, 218 F. 625, 627 .) Where obstructions exist on, over or near the tracks, it is the duty of the railroad toward its employees to give sufficient warning by means of telltales or other devices. … R. v. Brown, supra; Humphfres v. Western Pac. Ry. Co., 173 Cal. 428, 433 [ 160 P. 415 ].) The reason for the rule is obvious.

Simpson v. City of Los Angeles

4 Cal. 2d 60 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1935

(Lane v. San Diego Electric Ry. Co., 208 Cal. 29 [ 280 Pac. 109 ].) … (See Hadacheck v. Alexander, 169 Cal. 616 [ 147 Pac. 259 ]; Ex parte Sumida, 177 Cal. 388 [ 170 Pac. 823 ]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497 [ 234 Pac. 388 ]; affirmed 274 U. S. 325 [47 Sup. Ct. 594, 71 L.

Reeves v. Hanlon

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 2004

Buxbom v. … (Joust v.

People v. Bashor

48 Cal. 2d 763 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1957

Brown, Attorney General, and Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. *764 GIBSON, C.J. Defendant was indicted on two counts of murder and two of burglary. … While I unequivocally adhere to the salutary principles stated in my dissenting opinion in Rogers v.

Regents of University of California v. Riley

199 Cal. 506 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1926

(People v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 211, 214 [ 13 Am. St. Rep. 118 , 22 Pac. 140 ]; McClure v. Riley, 198 Cal. 23 [ 243 Pac. 429 ]. See, also, Estate of Wellings, 192 Cal. 506, 519 [ 221 Pac. 628 ].) … (State v. Sloan, *508 66 Ark. 575 [ 74 Am. St. Rep. 106 , 53 S. W. 47 ].)

People v. Wong Wang

92 Cal. 277 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1891

Bank v. … In People v.

People v. Crowson

33 Cal. 3d 623 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1983

(Brown v. State (Fla.App. 1977) 349 So.2d 1196, 1197 , cert. den. (1978) 434 U.S. 1078 [55 L.Ed.2d785, 98 S.Ct. 1271 ]; Hyland v. Wainwright (Fla.App. 1977) 356 So.2d 14 .) … State Board of Optometry (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 415, 428-430 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 860 ]; 4 Witkin, Cal.

Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. McKenzie

6 Cal. Unrep. 691 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1901

McBean was defeated in the lower court, but on appeal to this court the judgment was reversed, and it was declared here that his contract was not illegal, and that he was entitled to recover the amount due thereon: McBean v. … McBean, prior to the allowance of plaintiff’s demand as hereinbefore stated, presented a certified copy of his judgment to the board of trustees, and demanded that it should be audited and allowed; but the board denied the

People v. Loewen

35 Cal. 3d 117 · California Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1983

Georgia (1980) 448 U.S. 438, 440 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 890, 893 , 100 S.Ct. 2752 ]; Brown v. Texas (1979) 443 U.S. 47, 51 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 362 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 ].) … (People v. Bower (1979) 24 Cal.3d 638, 645 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 856 , 597 P.2d 115 ]; see also Brown v. Texas, supra, 443 U.S. at p. 52 [61 L.Ed.2d at pp. 362-363].)

White v. Ultramar, Inc.

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 19 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1999

(See Kolstad v. … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., concurred. A11 statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise noted.

Breese v. Price

29 Cal. 3d 923 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1981

(See State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Williams (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 218 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 226 ]; Board of Administration v. Ames (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 215 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 917 ].) … (Roe v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 884, 889 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 528 P.2d 771 ].)

L.A. Police Protective League v. City of L.A.

California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 2025

The RIPA Board is required to conduct “evidence-based research” (id. at subd. … Although the RIPA Board performs a valuable function, it is notable that the Board, which is tasked with conducting “evidence-based research” on various police practices (§ 13519.4, subd.

Las Animas & San Joaquin Land Co. v. Preciado

167 Cal. 580 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1914

(Haggin v. Kelly, 136 Cal. 481 , [ 69 Pac. 140 ] ; Castro v. Barry, 79 Cal. 443 , [ 21 Pac. 946 ] ; Dranga v. Rowe, 127 Cal. 506 , [ 59 Pac. 944 ]; Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554 , [ 74 Pac. 44 ]. … As in Woodruff v.

People v. Crandell

46 Cal. 3d 833 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1988

(People v. Allen, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 1277; People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 541 .) … (People v. Brown, supra, at p. 542, fn. 13, original italics.)

Agnew v. Costa

27 Cal. 425 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

(Palmer v. The Grand Junction Railway Company, 4 Mees. and Wels. 749; Clarke v. The Rochester and Syracuse Railroad Company, 14 N. Y. 574 .) In the case at bar, the boilers were either sufficient or insufficient. … Upon the exclusion of Coffee’s deposition, the defendant offered to prove “ that all skill and care and prudence were used, as far as human foresight would go, and that defendant did in fact provide and have on board a good

In re Carrillo

66 Cal. 3 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1884

That being the case, the charter of the city as to the judicial power of the city remained in full force, (Desmond v. Dunn, 55 Cal. 242 ; Wood v. … Board of Election Commissioners, 58 Cal. 561 ), and by the provisions of the charter there was established a police court for the city.

Dunn v. Mackey

80 Cal. 104 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1889

(Janin v. Browne, 59 Cal. 37, 44 .) … Reil, 51 Barb. 30 ; Lawton v. Reil, 34 How. Pr. 465 ; Ferner v. Collins, 1 Martin, N. S., 369; Cross v. Richardson, 7 Mart. (La.) 166.) The case of Donnelly v. Strueven, supra, is in point.

Moore v. Pacific Coast Steel Co.

171 Cal. 489 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1915

Defendant operated a large plant composed of several buildings and their yards, all inclosed within a high board fence. In this plant it engaged in the manufacture of steel and iron products. … (Zibbell v. Southern Pac. Co., 160 Cal. 237 , [ 116 Pac. 513 ]; Lucas v. Walker, 22 Cal. App. 296 , [ 134 Pac. 374 ].)

Dundon v. McDonald

146 Cal. 585 · California Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1905

The settlement with the Bank of Commerce and the sale of the bonds to Murphy as part thereof, were ratified by the board of directors, but the fact of McDonald’s purchase was not reported to the board; nor, with the possible … Code, secs. 2229, 2234; Golson v. Dunlap, 73 Cal. 159 , and authorities cited.) We advise that the judgment and order appealed from be affirmed.

Stewart v. Van Noy

69 Cal. 2d 296 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1968

(See Notten v. Mensing (1935) 3 Cal.2d 469, 473 [ 45 P.2d 198 ] ; Brown v. Superior Court (1949) 34 Cal.2d 559, 564 [ 212 P.2d 878 ] ; Rundell v. McDonald (1923) 62 Cal.App. 721, 725 [ 217 P. 1082 ] ; James v. … (See Notten v. Mensing, supra, 3 Cal.2d 469, 473 ; Brewer v. Simpson, supra, 53 Cal.2d 567, 592; Lich v. Carlin (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 128, 138 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 555 ] ; Lewis v.