Case law

Bean v. Ford

32 Cal. 4th 160 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2004

In Mingo v. … (Cavanaugh v.

Estrin v. Superior Court

14 Cal. 2d 670 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1939

In the case of Karry v. … (See, also, to the same effect, Borchard v. Board of Supervisors, 144 Cal. 10, 14 [ 77 Pac. 708 ].)

People v. Kirkpatrick

7 Cal. 4th 988 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1994

There was no error under People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512 . IX. … (People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 73-74 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 841 P.2d 118 ]; People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 600 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 809 P.2d 290 ]; People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d 432, 460 .)

Burris v. Superior Court

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 876 · California Supreme Court · Jan 10, 2005

App.2d 490, 494 , 265 P.2d 105 ; People v. Brown (1919) 42 Cal.App. 462, 464-465 , 183 P. 829 .) Burris and amicus curiae the Los Angeles County Public Defender rely on one Court of Appeal decision, People v. … We Concur: GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ.

Pacific R.R. Adver. Co. v. Conrad

168 Cal. 91 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1914

The methods of public announcements or advertisments prevailing in the city of Alameda are the newspapers, outdoor displays on bill-boards, and displays in ears. … (In re Guerrero, 69 Cal. 88 , [. 10 Pac. 261 ] ; Wolf v. Lansing, 53 Mich. 367 , [ 19 N. W. 38 ]; Fifth Ave. Coach Co. v. New York, 194 N. Y. 19 , [21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 744, 16 Ann. Cas. 695, 86 N. E. 824 ] ; Stull v.

People v. Perez

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2005

BROWN, J., Concurring.—I agree with parts I and II of the majority opinion, and part HI to the extent it concludes that the jury was presented with a legally inadequate theory. … In Griffin v.

People v. Sanders

55 Cal. 4th 731 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 2012

(People v. Smith (1950) 36 Cal.2d 444, 448 [ 224 P.2d 719 ]; see People v. … (Garrett v. United States (1985) 471 U.S. 773, 779 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 764 , 105 S.Ct. 2407 ]; Brown v. Ohio (1977) 432 U.S. 161, 165 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 187 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 ].)

Levin v. State Bar

47 Cal. 3d 1140 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1989

(Rimel v. State Bar (1983) 34 Cal.3d 128, 131 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 665 P.2d 956 ]; Toll v. … (See Lawhorn v. State Bar, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1367 .) Thus, in Garlow v.

Travelers Insurance v. Transport Indemnity Co.

6 Cal. 3d 514 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1972

Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz and Clyde C. Beery for Plaintiffs and Respondents. OPINION McCOMB, J. … Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co., 242 Cal. App.2d 227 [ 51 Cal. Rptr. 724 ].

People v. Taylor

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 827 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2001

The matter arose after Kazumi testified that he remembered Deputy District Attorney Bryan Brown representing the prosecution at the preliminary examination. … Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 450-54 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 .) Our reading of the instruction discloses no compulsion on the jury to impose death under such circumstances.

Glenn R. Sewell Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Loverde

70 Cal. 2d 666 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1969

Compare Strecker v. Barnard (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 149 [ 240 P.2d 345 ], with Browning v. Aymard (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 277 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 604 ]. See also, 1 American Law of Property, supra, section 3.80, pages 353-355. … (Brown v. Kling (1894) 101 Cal. 295, 299 [ 35 P. 995 ]; Monson v.

People v. Stevens

5 Cal. 2d 92 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1935

(People v. Tedesco, 1 Cal. (2d) 211, 219 [ 34 Pac. (2d) 467 ] ; People v. Bolton, 215 Cal. 12 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 116 ]; People v. Sieber, 201 Cal. 341 [ 257 Pac. 64 ] ; People v. Buchanan, 119 Cal. … (People v. Sieber, 201 Cal. 341, 349 [ 257 Pac. 64 ]; People v. Weber, 139 Cal. 325, 342 [ 86 Pac. 671 ]; People v. Perry, 144 Cal. 748, 750 [ 78 Pac. 284]; People v.

Neuval v. Cowell

36 Cal. 648 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1869

The contract sued on is a private contract, by which Menant & Co. agreed to do the work in front of defendant’s lot in accordance with the order of the Board of Supervisors and the law, and in accordance with the specifications … (Hicks v. Coleman, 25 *651 Cal. 122 .)

People v. Webb

38 Cal. 467 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

(State v. McKee, 1 Bailey, 651 ; Commonwealth v. Cummings, 3 Cush. 212 ; State v. Kittle, 2 Tyler, 471 ; State v. Davis, 4 Black. 346 ; State v. Bouche, 5 Id. 154; State v. Johnson, 8 Id. 533 ; Commonwealth v. … Wright, 3 Id. 421; State v. Hand, 1 Eng. 169; State v. Denton, Id. 259; State v. Burris, 3 Tex. 118 ; People v. Comstock, 8 Wend. 549 ; People v. Corning, 2 Coms. 9; State v. Brown, 16 Conn. 54 ; State v.

People v. Quinn

61 Cal. 2d 551 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1964

(People v. McFarland, 58 Cal.2d 748, 760 *556 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 473 , 376 P.2d 449]; Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11, 19 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 607 , 357 P.2d 839 ]; People v. Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577, 591 [ 320 P.2d 5 ].) … (People v. McFarland, supra, 58 Cal.2d 748, 760 ; People v. Griffin, 209 Cal.App.2d 125, 129 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 667 ]; People v. Nor Woods, supra, 37 Cal.2d 584, 586 ; People v. Kehoe, supra, 33 Cal.2d 711, 715 .)

Nelson v. Superior Court

9 Cal. 2d 729 · California Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1937

Petitioner is the secretary-actuary of the Retirement Board of the San Francisco City and County Employees’ Retirement System. … As was said in Hennessy v. Hall, 14 Cal. App. 759, 762 [ 113 Pac. 350 ], “there is an obvious and material distinction between showing a fact and stating it”. See, also, Irving v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.

In re Corbett

1 Cal. Unrep. 314 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1866

It appears from the .agreed statement that the board of supervisors of Sierra county levied the county taxes for 1866 in February of that year, and that they became a judgment against the person and a lien against the property … Under these circumstances the assessment of the taxes for the fiscal year 1866>-67 and the collection of them, belongs to *315 Sierra county, with reference to whose “expenditures” alone the taxes were levied: Moss v.

Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams

40 Cal. 3d 406 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1985

Without a hearing, the executive board issued a decision fully supporting the performer. The promoter protested and was granted a hearing. … The referee also recommended an award in favor of the performer, which was affirmed by the same executive board.

Department of Mental Hygiene v. Kirchner

60 Cal. 2d 716 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1964

Board of Medical Examiners (1962) §7 Cal.2d 228, 237 [13] [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 368 P.2d 101 ] ; Bilyeu v. State Employees’ Retirement *723 System (1962) 58 Cal.2d 618, 623 [2] [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 562 , 375 P.2d 442 ].) … State Board of Social Welfare (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 627, 631-632 [2] [ 186 P.2d 429 ] ; (attacks based on certain limited claims of discriminatory classification). Maricopa County v.

Young v. Wright

52 Cal. 407 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

The case is not distinguishable on principle from People v. Mier, 24 Cal. 61 , which has been approved in many subsequent cases. … A judgment is duly “rendered” when it is duly pronounced and ordered to be entered. ( Gray v. Palmer, 28 Cal. 416 ; Peck v. Cortis, 31 Ibid. 207; Geneilla v. Relyea, 32 Ibid. 159.)