Case law

People Ex Rel. U. S. Webb v. Bank of San Luis Obispo

154 Cal. 194 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1908

In People v. … (Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226 , [24 Pac. 383]; Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633 , [ 29 Pac. 251 ].)” We see no reason to doubt the correctness of this ruling.

People v. Friend

47 Cal. 2d 749 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1957

Brown, Attorney General, and William E. James, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. SCHAUER, J. … In People v.

Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 745 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2000

BROWN, J., Concurring.— Although I agree with most of the majority’s reasoning, I write separately on the issue of apportioning arbitral costs. … (See, e.g., Williams v.

Watts v. Crawford

10 Cal. 4th 743 · California Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1995

Practice Guide: Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial 3 (The Rutter Group 1994) ¶ 11:97.2, p. 11-38 [“A defendant who has ‘minimum *757 contacts’ with California is subject to California personal jurisdiction. … . 512, 515-516, 524-525 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 446, 450-451, 455-456 , 104 S.Ct. 2549 ] [postal service, conceding amenability to judicial process of state court but asserting immunity from administrative process of Franchise Tax Board

Finney v. Lockhart

35 Cal. 2d 161 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1950

(See Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 32 Cal.2d 791, 801 [ 197 P.2d 713 ]; Pickwick Stages v. Board of Trustees, 54 Cal.App. 730 [ 215 P. 558 ]; Singleton v. Singleton, 68 Cal.App.2d 681, 704 [ 157 P.2d 886 ].) … (Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 802 , citing Wilkinson v. Singh, 93 Cal.App. 337 [ 269 P. 705 ], and Plotnik v. Rosenberg, 55 Cal.App. 408 [ 203 P. 438 ]; see also Farvour v.

California Shipbuilding Corp. v. Industrial Accident Commission

31 Cal. 2d 278 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1947

Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 219 Cal. 699 [ 28 P.2d 919 ], is closely in point. … Clemens Horst Co. v. Industrial Acc.

Pacific Coast Dairy v. Police Court

214 Cal. 668 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1932

E. 143 , 146]; Lausen v. Board of Supervisors et al., 204 Iowa, 30 [ 214 N. W. 682, 684 ].) … Board of Medical Examiners, 148 Cal. 590, 592 [ 113 Am. St. Rep. 315 , 7 Ann. Cas. 750, *676 3 L. R. A. (N.

Paulsen v. Golden Gate University

25 Cal. 3d 803 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1979

(Shuffer v. Board of Trustees *809 (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 208, 219-220 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 527 ]; Wong v. Regents of University of California (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 823, 830-832 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 502 ].) … (Shuffer v. Board of Trustees, supra, 61 Cal.App.3d 208, 220.)

Richardson v. Superior Court of Tulare County

43 Cal. 4th 1040 · California Supreme Court · May 22, 2008

(See Rodriguez v. … [and] Steven Brown’s subsequent attempt to commit a similar crime against another victim.” (People v.

Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California

229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 347 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2018

Royal Packing Company, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 581– 582 [same]; Armistead v. State Personnel Board (1978) 22 Cal.3d 198, 204 [stating same rule as Tidewater]; see also Gov. Code, § 11340.5, subd. (a).) … This court’s opinion explained that, historically, the State Board of Equalization (the Board) had prepared “ ‘annotations,’ ” which we described as “summaries of opinions by [the Board’s] attorneys of the business tax effects

Kern County Land Co. v. Railroad Commission

2 Cal. 2d 29 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1934

(People v. Young, 301 Ill. 67 [ 133 N. E. 693 ]; Board of Education v. Board of Education, 121 Ohio St. 213 [ 167 N. E. 872 ].) … Assn. v.

Hogan v. Central Pacific Railroad

71 Cal. 83 · California Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1886

(Thompson on Highways, 256; Lansing v. Smith, 8 Cow. 146 ; Butler v. Kent, 19 Johns. 223 ; S. C., 10 Am. Dec. 219 ; Pierce v. Dart, 7 Cow. 609 ; *87 Mills v. Hall, 9 Wend. 315 ; S. C., 24 Am. Dec. 160 ; Tibbets v. … Blade, 60 Cal. 428 ; Crowley v. Davis, 63 Cal. 460 ; Aram v. Schallenberger, 41 Cal. 449 ; Bigley v. Nunan, 53 Cal. 403 ; Payne v. McKinley, 54 Cal. 532 .)

People v. Simpton

133 Cal. 367 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1901

But, although the term “oath” is defined, there is no provision dispensing with the necessity of being sworn to testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before a competent tribunal, board, or person. … (People v. Ah Bean, 77 Cal. 12 ; People v. De Carlo, 124 Cal. 463; People v. Rodley, 131 Cal. 240 .) In People v.

Willett v. Jordan

1 Cal. 2d 461 · California Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1934

The petitioner is the president of the state board of chiropractic examiners. … (Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. (80 U. S.) 92 [ 20 L. Ed. 534 ].) When it is invoked the doctrine must be based on some antecedent lawful right (United States v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.

People v. Rios

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 512 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2000

Under similar circumstances, People v. … J., Kennard, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. All further unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.

People v. Rountree

56 Cal. 4th 823 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 2013

(Lockhart v. McCree (1986) 476 U.S. 162, 176 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 137 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 ]; see Uttecht v. … Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 6 [ 167 L.Ed.2d 1014 , 127 S.Ct. 2218 ] [“[b]ecause ‘[a] man who opposes the death penalty, no less than one who favors it, can make the discretionary judgment entrusted to him by the State,’ ” it

Merritt v. Campbell

47 Cal. 542 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

But under our statute concerning attorneys and counselors at law (Sec. 9) this authority must be considered to be conferred upon the attorney of record in a cause (Board of Commissioners v. *546 Younger, 29 Cal. … In the Bank of the Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 2 Dana, 395 , the first action brought was, by the judgment of the Court, “ dismissed agreed.”

Coglan v. Beard

67 Cal. 303 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1885

(People v. Holden, 28 Cal. 133 ; Coglan v. … As was said in People v. Livingston, 79 N.

Fountain v. Semi-Tropic Land & Water Co.

99 Cal. 677 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1893

On the other hand, it is often said, as it was by this court in Wainwright v. Weske, 82 Cal. 193 : “In such an action plaintiff does not seek to rescind the contract. … (Cleary v. Folger, 84 Cal. 316 ; 18 Am. St. Rep. 187 ; Drew v. Pedlar, 87 Cal. 443 ; 22 Am. St. Rep. 257 ; Phelps v. Brown, 95 Cal. 572 .)

Walter v. Merced Academy Ass'n

126 Cal. 582 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1899

Co. v. Johnson, 109 Cal. 193 , 50 Am. St. Rep. 34 , and many other cases. … (Baines v. Babcock, supra; Blumberg v. Birch, 99 Cal. 416 ; 37 Am. St. Rep. 67 .) The findings cover the material issues; the decision, therefore, is not against law.