Case law

People v. Hamilton

33 Cal. 2d 45 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1948

In defense of the charge specified in count one, Bundy claimed that on the 7th of November he was at an all-night party in Richmond with Brown. … (People v. Rogers, 22 Cal.2d 787 [ 141 P.2d 722 ] ; People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885 [ 129 P.2d 367 ].) In People v.

Sbarboro v. Jordan

164 Cal. 51 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1912

As to such a convention, we have direct authority in this state, in the case of Hutchinson v. Brown, 122 Cal. 189 , [42 L. R. A. 232, 54 Pac. 738 ].

Osment v. Mcelrath

68 Cal. 466 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1886

In Gary v. Brown, 58 Cal. 184 , this court overruled a similar objection, and said: “ The findings are upon the issues of fact, and in this case must be limited to the conflicting allegations of the pleadings.” 3. … (Denver v. Roane, 99 U.

Louthan v. Hewes

138 Cal. 116 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1902

Code, sec. 2009; Hedge v. Williams, 131 Cal. 456 et seq; 1 Mann v. O'Sullivan, 126 Cal. 66; 2 Frassi v. McDonald, 122 Cal. 402 ; Bennett v. Truebody, 66 Cal. 509 ; 3 Boswell v. … (Jessen v. Sweigert, 66 Cal. 182 ; Barry v. Terkildsen, 72 Cal. 254 ; 2 Colgrove v. Smith, 102 Cal. 220 ; Spence v. Schultz, 103 Cal. 208 ; McGraw v. Friend etc. Lumber Co., 120 Cal. 574 .)

Crosswhite v. American Insurance Co.

61 Cal. 2d 300 · California Supreme Court · May 14, 1964

Van Ness, 202 Cal. 359, 374, 379-380 [ 260 P. 869 ]; Nahhas v. Browning, 181 Cal. 55, 57 [ 183 P. 442 , 6 A.L.R. 476 ]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 667, 627; see Code Civ. Proc., § 740; 10 Cal.Jur.2d, Claim and Delivery, § 70.) … In Bucy v.

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 ].)

Landrum v. Superior Court

30 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1981

[Citations.]" ( Stafford v. Realty Bond Service Corp. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 797, 805 [ 249 P.2d 241 ]; Stafford v. L.A. etc. Retirement Board (1954) 42 Cal.2d 795, 799 [ 270 P.2d 12 ]; Select Base Materials v. … Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ]; People v. Ruster, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 696 .)

People v. Trevino

39 Cal. 3d 667 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1985

Instead, I believe we should adhere to the approach set forth in People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 282 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ] and reiterated in People v. … We recently reaffirmed this proposition in People v.

Commercial Bank v. Kershner

120 Cal. 495 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1898

And so in Felton v. … Arnott, 80 Cal. 348 ; Brown v. Willis, 67 Cal. 235 .) In Biddell v.

City of San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty.

214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2017

(See, e.g., Board of Pilot Comrs. for the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo and Suisun v. Superior Court (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 577, 598; Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. … Tunick for Education Legal Alliance of the California School Boards Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners. Jennifer B.

Security Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Hinton

97 Cal. 214 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1893

In Brooks v. … And this language was repeated in People v. Toal, 85 Cal. 333 . Brooks v.

Fay v. Reed

128 Cal. 357 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1900

In McBean v. … Co. v.

Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy Scouts of America

17 Cal. 4th 670 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1998

BROWN, J. I concur in the judgment. In my view, however, the majority’s analysis cannot sustain the result. … Beginning at least with Isbister 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).

Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc.

128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 172 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2003

BROWN, J., Concurring. I agree with most of Justice Moreno’s concurrence. … (Offshore Rental Co. v. Continental Oil Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 157, 165 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 583 P.2d 721 ].)

Hildebrand v. Beck

196 Cal. 141 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1925

(People v. Jackson, 138 Cal. 462 [ 71 Pac. 566 ].) … Code; Brown v. Rouse, 104 Cal. 672 [ 38 Pac. 507 ].) .The judgment is affirmed. Seawell, J., Shenk, J., Myers, C. J., Richards, J., Waste, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Chapman v. Doray

89 Cal. 52 · California Supreme Court · May 7, 1891

In Schenck v. Bandmann, 81 Cal. 231 , the action was brought under the same statute to recover the declared penalty. … The statute complained of has been considered and upheld in the following cases: Loveland v. Garner, 71 Gal. 541; Beal v. Osborne, 72 Cal. 305 ; Schenclc v. Bandmann, 81 Cal. 231 .

People v. Martin

46 Cal. 2d 106 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1956

Brown, Attorney General, Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, and Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. TRAYNOR, J. … In Husty v.

People v. Watkins

55 Cal. 4th 999 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2012

Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 404 (Brown), and (2) we find no such state or federal law defect in this case. … (Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 401.) Moreover, “[t]he jury is not constitutionally required to achieve unanimity as to aggravating circumstances.” (Id., at p. 402; see People v.

Alvord v. Spring Valley Gold Co.

106 Cal. 547 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1895

It is contended by respondents that the case of Biddel v. Brizzolara, 64 Cal. 354 , is in conflict with this rule, but we are unable to perceive any such conflict. … (See, also, Flint v. Cadenasso, 64 Cal. 83 .)