Case law

Paulsen v. McDuffie

4 Cal. 2d 111 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1935

App. 404, 414 [ 18 Pac. (2d) 429 ], Anderson v. Matson Nav. Co., supra, and McGeorge v. Charles Nelson Co., supra.) … (United States v. Boykin, 49 Fed. (2d) 762; Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 289 Fed. 964 ; Wychgel v. States S. S. Co., 135 Or. 475 [ 296 Pac. 863 ].)’”

Fisk v. Central Pacific Railroad

72 Cal. 38 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1887

(King v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 9 Cush. 112 ; Chicago R. R. Co. v. Harney, 28 Ind. 28 ; Ohio R. R. Co. v. Hammersley, 28 Ind. 371 ; Gartland v. Toledo R. R. Co., 67 Ill. 498 ; Brown v. Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592 .) … (Coombs v. New Bedford C. Co., 102 Mass. 572 ; Grizzle v. Frost, 3 Fost. & F. 622; Dowling v. Allen, 74 Mo. 16 ; Railroad Co. v. Fort, 17 Wall. 554 ; Kline v. C. P. R. R., 37 Cal. 400 ; Sullivan v. India Mfg.

People v. Dixon

46 Cal. 2d 456 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1956

Brown, Attorney General, and William E. James, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. TRAYNOR, J. … (See United States v. Pisano, 193 F.2d 361, 363-364 ; Kelley v. United States, 61 F.2d 843, 846-847 [ 86 A.L.R. 338 ]; Dibello v. United States, 19 F.2d 749 , 750- 751; United States v. Charles, 8 F.2d 302 ; Fryar v.

Rediker v. Rediker

35 Cal. 2d 796 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1950

Margulies, 109 N.J.Eq. 391, 392 [ 157 A. 676 ]; Van Slyke v. Van Slyke, 186 Mich. 324, 330 [ 152 N.W. 921 ]; Bowen v. Fink, 34 F.Supp. 235 ; Krause v. Krause, 282 N.Y. 355, 360 [ 26 N.E.2d 290 ]; Brown v. … Brown, 242 App.Div. 33 [ 272 N.Y.S. 877 ], aff’d. 266 N.Y. 532 [ 195 N.E. 186 ]; Chapman v.

Maloney v. Rath

69 Cal. 2d 442 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1968

Although there is language in Ponce v. … Morris (1952) 39 Cal.2d 450, 456 [ 247 P.2d 352 ]; Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation (1943) 23 Cal.2d 256 [ 143 P.2d 929 ]; Rest.2d Torts (1965) § 422) and to comply with applicable safety ordinances (Finnegan v.

People v. Grant

83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 295 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1999

(United States v. Campanale, supra, 518 F.2d at pp. 364-365; see also United States v. Brown (5th Cir. 1977) 555 F.2d 407, 417 .) 4 Another federal case on point is U.S. v. … J., Mosk, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. 1 Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Leah did not give the year in which the molestation or the oral

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.

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 ]

People v. Silva

45 Cal. 3d 604 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1988

Defendant relies upon our opinion in People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], vacated on other grounds sub nom. California v. … We conclude, therefore, that no Brown error occurred in this case. G. Ramos Error Defendant’s motion for new trial based upon purported Ramos error (People v.

People v. Craig

196 Cal. 19 · California Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1925

He directed Craig and Baker to take positions on the running-board. Craig stepped on the right running-board and Baker on the left. … In the case of People v. Kromphold , quoting approvingly from People v.

People v. Vera

15 Cal. 4th 269 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1997

Opinion BROWN, J. … People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 447-448 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ] [distinguishing capital jury’s constitutionally mandated exercise of vast discretion from guilt phase jury’s role as fact finder].)

Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Johnson

19 Cal. 2d 162 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1941

On the basis of those figures the State Board of Equalization determined the tax here involved to be payable by plaintiff. … Hinson v. Lott, supra; Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton, 262 U. S. 506 , 67 L. Ed. 1095 , 43 Sup. Ct. 643.

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court

2 Cal. 4th 377 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1992

In Nader v. … In Tank Car Corp. v.

Fleckenstein v. Placer County

5 Cal. Unrep. 774 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1894

It provides that constables shall have the “fees allowed by the general fee bill of 1870, provided that the amount allowed by the board of supervisors for services in criminal actions and proceedings other than felonies shall … Nor is the law under consideration local and special, and for that reason forbidden by the constitution: Longan v. County *776 of Solano, 65 Cal. 122 , 3 Pac. 463 ; Cody v. Murphey, 89 Cal. 522 , 26 Pac. 1081 .

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 ].)

Dool v. First Nat'l Bank of Calexico

209 Cal. 717 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1930

In fact, he was a member of the board of trustees of the city of Calexico, a city of the sixth class, and participated in the deliberations of that board on March 24th, three weeks after the stroke of paralysis and three … In Parker v.

People v. Lee

51 Cal. 4th 620 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 2011

(People v. Brown, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 551 .) … (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 447-448 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].)

People v. Alford

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 310 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2007

Evangelatos v. … (See People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 534 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 73 P.3d 1137 ] [a court should not entertain constitutional claims unless necessary to dispose of a case]; People v.

Stockburger v. Jordan

10 Cal. 2d 636 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1938

(Hollister v. Kingsbury, 129 Cal. App. 420 [ 18 Pac. (2d) 1006 ]; In re McDermott, 180 Cal. 783 [ 183 Pac. 437]; Roy v. Beveridge, 125 Or. 92 [266 Pac. 230]; Arkansas Tax Com. v. Moore, 103 Ark. 48 [145 j3. … (Wood v. Roach, 125 Cal. App. 631 [ 14 Pac. (2d) 170 ]; Mack v. Jastro, 126 Cal. 130, 131, 133 [ 58 Pac. 372 ]; Carter v. Stevens, 208 Cal. 649 [ 284 Pac. 217 ].)

Hurtel v. Albert Cohn, Inc.

5 Cal. 2d 145 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1936

To the same effect are Reinders v. Olsen, 60 Cal. App. 764, 771 [ 214 Pac. 268 ], and Fresno T. Co. v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 175 Cal. 358 [ 165 Pac. 1013 ]. … (Newell v. Desmond, 74 Cal. 46 [ 15 Pac. 369 ]; Johnston v. McDuffee, 83 Cal. 30 [ 23 Pac. 214 ] ; Adams v. Weaver, 117 Cal. 42, 49 [ 48 Pac. 972 ].) There are no other points which require discussion.