Case law

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 ].)

Merced Bank v. Ivett

127 Cal. 134 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1899

The board of directors that resolved the bank into liquidation at the next regular meeting had the same power to resolve it out of liquidation. … It has been held in this state in Bonney v.

Scott v. Industrial Accident Commission

46 Cal. 2d 76 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1956

(Greene v. Superior Court (1951), 37 Cal.2d 307, 310-311 [ 231 P.2d 821 ]; Browne v. Superior Court (1940), 16 Cal.2d 593, 597, 602 [ 107 P.2d 1 , 131 A.L.R. 276 ]; Slinack v. … (See, e.g., Greene v. Superior Court (1951), supra, 37 Cal.2d 307, 312 [child custody, guardianship]; Brown v.

People v. Rosen

11 Cal. 2d 147 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1938

(People v. Hughes, supra; Thompson v. Commonwealth, 13 Ky. Law Rep. 916 [ 18 S. W. 1022 ]; Sikes v. Commonwealth, 17 Ky. Law Rep. 1353 [ 34 S. W. 902 ] ; Gant v. State, 115 Ga. 205 [ 41 S. E. 698 ]; State v. … (People v. Keefer, 65 Cal. 232 [ 3 Pac. 818 ]; State v. Brown, 104 Mo. 365 [ 16 S. W. 406 ].)

Bituminous Lime Rock Paving & Improvement Co. v. Fulton

4 Cal. Unrep. 151 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1893

It is a public highway of a city or village, over which all the citizens of the land have a right to pass and repass at pleasure: State v. Moriarty, 74 Ind. 104 ; Perrin v. Railroad Co., 36 N. Y. 126 ; Kelsey v. … duly given or made, etc.: Babcock v.

Walsh v. Hill

38 Cal. 481 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

The west line was marked by a “skeleton” fence, consisting of three boards nailed to posts three by four. … Simpson (12 Id. 560), English v. Johnson (17 Id. 107), Attwood v. Fricot (Id. 37), Keane v. Cannovan (21 Id. 299), Kile v. Tubbs (23 Id. 431), Hicks v. Coleman (25 Id. 122), Hoag v. Pierce (28 Id. 187), Davis v.

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.

Sunset Lumber Co. v. Bachelder

167 Cal. 512 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1914

(Robison v. Mitchell, 159 Cal. 588 , [ 114 Pac. 984 ].) … (Vermont Marble Co. v. Black, 123 Cal. 23 , [ 55 Pac. 599 ]; Kenney v. Parke, 120 Cal. 24 , [ 52 Pac. 40 ] ; Warner Bros. Co. v. Freud, 131 Cal. 639 , [ 82 Am. St. Rep. 400 , 63 Pac. 1017 ].)

Wright v. County of Sonoma

156 Cal. 475 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1909

The well was bored and the water used for sprinkling purposes, with the knowledge of the board of supervisors of Sonoma County solely under the bona fide claim that the county had the lawful right to so take and use the water … (Wright v. Austin, 143 Cal. 236 , [ 101 Am. St. Rep. 97 , 76 Pac. 1023 ].)

H. & J. Mabury Co. v. Bryant

9 Cal. 2d 586 · California Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1937

(Mabury v. Bryant, 8 Cal. (2d) 704 [ 68 Pac. (2d) 359 ].) … (Stockton Sav. & Loan Soc. v. Harrold, 127 Cal. 612 [ 60 Pac. (2d) 165 ]; Brown v. Luddy, 121 Cal. App. 494 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 326 ]; 9 Cal. Jur. Supp., pp. 698, 699; Hough v. Wright, 127 Cal. App. 689 [ 16 Pac. (2d) 301 ].)

Taylor v. George

34 Cal. 2d 552 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1949

(United States Gypsum Co. v. Shaffer, 7 Cal.2d 454 [ 60 P.2d 998 ]; Saunders v. Simms, 183 Cal. 167 [ 190 P. 806 ]; Newman v. Burwell, supra, 216 Cal. 608 ; Palace Hotel Co. v. Crist, 6 Cal.App.2d 690 [ 45 P.2d 415 ].) … J., Edmonds, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred. *559 Dec. 1949] Brown v. Superior Court 134 C.2d 559; 212 P.2d 878 ]

Paramount Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Department of Health Care Services

15 Cal. 3d 489 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1975

In Board of Regents v. … In Board of Regents v.

People v. Dement

48 Cal. 2d 600 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1957

It was stated in People v. … Cole, 141 Cal. 88, 91 [ 74 P. 547 ] ; People v. Bennett, 119 Cal.App.2d 224, 226 [ 259 P.2d 476 ] ; People v. Brown, 145 Cal.App.2d 778, 782 [ 303 P.2d 68 ].)

Northwestern Portland Cement Co. v. Atlantic Portland Cement Co.

174 Cal. 308 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1917

Code, sec. 2888; Haber v. Brown, 101 Cal. 445, 452 , [ 35 Pac. 1035 ].) But it does vest in the pledgee a “special property” in the chattels pledged (Williams v. … Sime, 42 Cal. 139 ; Thompson v. Toland, 48 Cal. 99 ; Arnold v. Johnson, 66 Cal. 402 , [ 5 Pac. 796 ] ; Fowles v.

Mills v. Barney

22 Cal. 240 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

(See, also, Dick v. Leverich, 11 Louis. 576; Talbot v. Bank of Rochester, 1 Hill, 295 ; Hartsman v. Henshaw, 11 How. 183 ; Harris v. Bradley, 7 Yerg. 310 ; Olivier v. Andy, 7 Louis. 496; Herrick v. … It seems to have been held that in actions like these against the indorser of a note or bill, the indorser is liable for such costs (Scott v. McLellan, 2 Green. 199; Hubbly v. Brown, 16 John. 70 ; Jones v.

People v. Sampsell

34 Cal. 2d 757 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1950

He jumped off the running board at First and Broadway and ran into a bus depot and was lost in the crowd. He was apprehended almost a year later in Phoenix, Arizona. … In People v.

Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of California

47 Cal. 3d 376 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1988

(Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 ].) … (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d at pp. 287-288; Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 134 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .)

Bray v. Lowery

163 Cal. 256 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1912

Fuel Co. v. Tuck, 53 Cal. 304 ; Rose v. Foord, 96 Cal. 154 , [ 30 Pac. 1114 ]; Hayes v. Los Angeles County, 99 Cal. 79 , [ 33 Pac. 766 ]; 1 Chitty on Pleading, 362, note z; Russ etc. Co. v. Muscupiabe etc. … H. 444.) ” In Phelps v. *262 Brown, 95 Cal. 576 , [ 30 Pac. 774 ], it was held that the voluntary abandonment of a contract by vendors left the money of the vendee in their hands subject to suit for its recovery.

Epley v. Califro

49 Cal. 2d 849 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1958

Nicholson v. Henderson, 25 Cal.2d 375 [ 153 P.2d 945 ], and Krug v. … As stated in Bastajian v. Brown, 19 Cal.2d 209, 214 [ 120 P.2d 9 ], citing Stevens v.

Reid v. Google, Inc.

50 Cal. 4th 512 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 2010

I propose [Brown] . . . meets with [Reid] [on February 24] and lets him know there’s no role [for him] in her org .... … Reid then met with Brown, who stated no positions were available for him in her department. According to Reid, Brown commented that he was not a “cultural fit” at Google.