Case law

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.

Keating v. Superior Court

31 Cal. 3d 584 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1982

Brown, Brown & Finney, Brown, Joseph & Finney, Linda R. Joseph, John F. Banker, Banker & Linderman, John F. Wells, Lise A. Pearlman, Fonda Karelitz, D. … available to parties appearing before board].)

Swamp Land Reclamation Dist. No. 341 v. Blumenberg

156 Cal. 532 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1909

(Church v. People, 174 Ill. 366 , [ 51 N. E. 747 ]; Pells v. People, 159 Ill. 587 , [ 42 N. E. 784 ]; Young v. People, 196 Ill. 603 , [ 63 N. E. 1075 ]; Gage v. People, 193 Ill. 316 , [ 61 N. E. 1045 ].) … (Miller v. Gaskins Sm. & M. Ch. (Miss.), 524. See, also, Scott v. Shreeve, 12 Wheat. (25 U. S.) 605; Reese v. Walton, 4 B. Mon. (43 Ky.) 507; Buchanan v. Lorman, 3 Gill (28 Md.), 51; Hilleary v.

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.

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.

Halaco Engineering Co. v. South Central Coast Regional Commission

42 Cal. 3d 52 · California Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1986

We have said that in such case, the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from such facts is a question of law (Board of Education v. … State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal.3d 214, 238 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 461 P.2d 375 ]; Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners (1968) 68 Cal.2d 67, 74 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 435 P.2d 553 ]).

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 ].)

People v. Hurtado

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 186 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 2002

In Neder v. … J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurred. Unless otherwise noted, all statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Leff v. Gunter

33 Cal. 3d 508 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1983

In Page v. … Board of Education (1964) 61 Cal.2d 612, 625-626 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 394 P.2d 579 ] [mandamus action based on “general underlying monetary obligation” for back salary]; Levy-Zentner Co. v. Southern Pac.

Scheff v. Roberts

35 Cal. 2d 10 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1950

(Flemmer v. Monckton, 73 Cal.App.2d 271, 274-276 [ 166 P.2d 380 ]; Brown v. Aldrich, 77 Cal.App.2d 693, 694-696 [ 176 P.2d 89 ]; Casey v. Fortune, supra, 78 Cal.App.2d 922, 925 ; Reed v. … (Bradford v. Sargent, 135 Cal.App. 324, 330 [ 27 P.2d 93 ]; Howland v. Doyle, 6 Cal.App.2d 311, 315 [ 44 P.2d 453 ].) In Burgess v.

County of Yolo v. City of Sacramento

36 Cal. 193 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1868

(Blanc v. Klumpke, 29 Cal. 156 .) … (Blanc v, Klumpke, supra.)

Estate of Yoell

164 Cal. 540 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1913

E. 328 ] ; Young v. Hicks, 92 N. Y. 234 ; Johnston v. Spicer, 107 N. Y. 191 , [ 13 N. E. 753 ] ; Pavlicek v. Roessler, 222 Ill. 83 , [ 78 N. E. 11 ] ; Brown v. Brown’s Admr., (Ky.), 80 S. … Warner v.

Flickinger v. Fay

119 Cal. 590 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1898

Co. v. Broderick, 113 Cal. 628 .) … It was held in the case just cited that the board of supervisors had no power to direct the superintendent to enter into a contract for doing such work, unless it was awarded to the lowest responsible bidder after proposals

First National Bank v. Eastman

144 Cal. 487 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1904

(Belcher v. Chambers, 53 Cal. 635 ; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350 ; Brown v. Campbell, 100 Cal. 641 ; 1 Graham v. Spencer, 14 Fed. 606 ; Manchester v. McKee, 9 Ill. 520 .) … In Quarl v.

Sugarman v. State Bar

51 Cal. 3d 609 · California Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1990

Petitioner told the board he could not afford to perform any future work for Sundance unless he was paid the fees he was owed. The board informed petitioner Sundance would be paying him at least $30,000 in 30 days. … In Baker v.

Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc.

California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2021

case]; Barefield v. Board of Trustees of Cal. … We rejected a similar argument in Morcos v. Board of Retirement (1990) 51 Cal.3d 924 (Morcos).

Malmgren v. McColgan

20 Cal. 2d 424 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1942

(Burnet v. Whitehouse, 283 U. S. 148 [ 51 S. Ct. 374 , 75 L. Ed. 916 ]; Helvering v. Butterworth, 290 U. S. 365 [ 54 S. Ct. 221 , 78 L. Ed. 365 ]; Letts v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 84 F. (2d) 760, 762; Sitterding v. … (Weigel v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 96 F. (2d) 387, 389.) In Weber v. Commissioner of Int.

People v. Hurley

60 Cal. 74 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1882

In Crozier v. The People ( 1 Park. Cr. 447 ), a part of the goods alleged to have been burglariously stolen were found in the unlocked trunk of C., on board of a steamboat. … As we view it, this case is much weaker for the prosecution than either The People v. Noregea ( 48 Cal. 123 ), or The People v.

Falkner, Bell & Co. v. Hunt

16 Cal. 167 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

(Hayes v. Hogan, 5 Cal. 243 ; McMillan v. Richards, 9 Id. 417, and the cases cited in the appellants’ brief.) 2. … That this description would be enough if all reference to the mortgage were left out, and, therefore, this reference does not vitiate; that if this property were over-estimated, then the proper remedy was to apply to the Board