Case law

McFarland v. Spengler

199 Cal. 147 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1926

McFarland, the contestant and respondent, and Gus Spengler, the contestee and appellant, were rival candidates for the office of member of the board of supervisors of Kern County. … Dist. v. Algeo, 61 Cal. App. 660 [ 215 Pac. 726 ]; see, also, Union High School Dist. v. McClellan, 67 Cal. App. 640 [ 228 Pac. 409 ].)

City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 202 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2002

BROWN, J., Concurring. I agree with the majority that the 1990 complaint against Officer C. does not meet the materiality standard set forth in Brady v. … The majority relies on Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987) 480 U.S. 39 [ 107 S.Ct. 989 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 ] (Ritchie). (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 14-15.)

First National Bank v. Spalding

177 Cal. 217 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1918

Bank of Redlands v. Bowers, 141 Cal. 253 , [ 74 Pac. 856 ]; Howland v. Aitch, 38 Cal. 133 ; Burnett v. Piercy, 149 Cal. 178 -189, [ 86 Pac. 603 ]; Otis v. Haseltine, 27 Cal. 81 ; Hazeltine v. … (London and San Francisco Bank v. Parrott, supra; Brown v. Olmsted, 50 Cal. 162 ; Savings Bank v. Central Market Co., 122 Cal. 28 , [ 54 Pac. 273 ]; Comptoir D'Escompte v. Dresbach, 78 Cal. 15 , [ 20 Pac. 28 ].)

E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 701 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2004

(Id. at p. 1114; see also Taff v. Atlas Assur. … Brown, J., concurred. Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied April 28, 2004. Kennard, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Consolidated Milk Producers v. Parker

19 Cal. 2d 815 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1942

Ed. 940 ]; Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brock, 13 Cal. (2d) 620, 637 [ 91 Pac. (2d) 577 ]; Ray v. Parker, 15 Cal. (2d) 275, 281 [ 101 Pac. (2d) 665 ].) … Milk Control Board v. Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U. S. *817 346 [ 59 S. Ct. 528 , 83 L. Ed. 752 ].)

Estate of Blake

136 Cal. 306 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1902

Co. v. … Clear Lake Water Company the remarks of the learned judge were made in holding that the testimony of one Brown, an expert, ought to have been admitted.

Sunset Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Pasadena

161 Cal. 265 · California Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1911

(See opinion of Chief Justice Beatty in Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co., 118 Cal. 174 and 175, [ 50 Pac. 277 ], and Clark v. … The case of Bruner v.

Wright v. Killian

132 Cal. 56 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1901

It appears, however, that the wages in the district generally were three dollars per day for a man, where he boarded himself, or two dollars when board was furnished, the employer to furnish tools, powder, etc., in both cases … contend, that the provision of the law as to assessment-work is often evaded, and that, as this court has said, “the conditions imposed by the act of Congress are wise and salutary, and are by no means onerous ” (Russell v.

Jarvis v. Webber

196 Cal. 86 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1925

(See May v. Tenney, 148 U. S. 64 [ 37 L. Ed. 368 , 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 491, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes].) ‘The material and essential characteristic of a general assignment is the presence of a trust’ (Brown v. … (Dana v. Stanford, 10 Cal. 269 ; Wellington v. Sedgwick, 12 Cal. 469 ; Saunderson v. Broadwell, 82 Cal. 132, 133 [ 23 Pac. 36 ].)

McDonnell v. Gillon

134 Cal. 329 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1901

The resolution is ,the initial step, and by it alone the board acquired jurisdiction to subsequently order the work done. (Schwiesau v. Mahon, 128 Cal. 114 ; citing Bolton v. Gilleran, 105 Cal. 244 . 1 See also Fay v. … It was held in Fay v.

People v. Seel

21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 179 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 2004

Concurring Opinion by BROWN, J. On more than one occasion, I have expressed the view that double jeopardy principles most likely extend to certain fact-bound sentencing enhancements. (See People v. … Hernandez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 835, 848-850 , 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 , 968 P.2d 465 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.); People v. Monge (1997) 16 Cal.4th 826, 845-847 , 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 853 , 941 P.2d 1121 (conc. opn. of Brown, J.).)

Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v. City Council of Los Angeles

23 Cal. 3d 917 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1979

Bradley v. Richmond School Board (1974) 416 U.S. 696 [ 40 L.Ed.2d 476 , 94 S.Ct. 2006 ] is perhaps the leading case on point. … Interest v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 241 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 766 ].)

Oswald v. Schwartz

181 Cal. 620 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1919

In this respect the case is within the doctrine declared in Adamson v. Paonessa, 180 Cal. 157 , [ 179 Pac. 880 ]. … (Puterbaugh v. McCray, 25 Cal. App. 469, [ 144 Pac. 149 ]; 2 R. C. L., p. 615.)

Whiting v. Townsend

57 Cal. 515 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

claimed, on behalf of the appellant, that the words “ except that portion required by law to be kept in order by the railroad company having tracks thereon,” destroys all certainty as to the particular portion which the board … (See Chambers v. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 497 ; Burnett v. Mayor and Common Council of the City of Sacramento, 12 id. 76; People v. Lynch, 51 id. 15; Lansing v. Smith, 8 Cowen, 146; Dill, on Mun. Cor. §§ 543, 782.) .

In Re Sakarias

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 265 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2005

For a period in 1987 to 1988, Waidla lived in the Piirisilds’ guest house, performing remodeling work and other chores in exchange for his room and board. … (United States v. Kattar (1st Cir. 1988) 840 F.2d 118, 127 .) His or her goal must be “not simply to obtain a conviction, but to obtain a fair conviction.” (Brown v.

Gray v. Brinkerhoff

41 Cal. 2d 180 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1953

(See Satterlee v. Orange Glen School Dist. (1947), 29 Cal.2d 581, 589 [ 177 P.2d 279 ] ; Ornales v. Wigger (1950), 35 Cal.2d 474, 477-480 [ 218 P.2d 531 ] ; Finney v. … (See LeBlanc v. Browne (1947), 78 Cal.App.2d 63, 71-75 [ 177 P.2d 347 ].)

Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel

3 Cal. 3d 756 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1970

Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal.3d 351, 366, fn. 18 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 337 , 461 P.2d 617 ].) … McEachen (1959) 51 Cal.2d 448, 454 [ 334 P.2d 870 ]; Christian v. Goodwin (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 650, 652-655 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 507 ]; cf. Brown v.

County of Inyo v. Erro

119 Cal. 119 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1897

In Ex parte Miranda, 73 Cal. 365 , and County of El Dorado v. … In County of El Dorado v.

People v. McCart

32 Cal. 3d 338 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1982

(Select Base Materials v. Board *343 of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) We shall review the section in its entirety. … (Hoag v. Howard (1880) 55 Cal. 564, 565 ; Corey v. Knight (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 671, 680 [ 310 P.2d 673 ].) Language in subdivision (b) indicates this principle is appropriately applied here.

Ex parte Brown

68 Cal. 176 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1885

Application for admission to bail by Brown and Weile, after the verdict of the jury finding each of them guilty of a felony, and before judgment pronounced on the verdict. … It was held in People v.