Case law

Brown v. Pitchess

13 Cal. 3d 518 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1975

(New Times, Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regents (1974) 110 Ariz. 367 [ 519 P.2d 169, 176 ]; Dudley v. Bell (1973) 50 Mich.App. 678 [ 213 N.W.2d 805, 806-807 ]; Clark v. … Brown (1969) 223 Tenn. 25 [ 442 S.W.2d 248, 252 ]; see Beauregard v. Wingard (S.D.Cal. 1964) 230 F.Supp. 167, 185 .)

Sannickson v. Brown

5 Cal. 57 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1855

is a suit brought in the Court below upon a number of accounts for labor and services, and for furnishing goods and materials for the defendants’ use and benefit, which accounts purport to be “audited and approved” by a Board … of Trustees of the “ Laura Virginia Association,” and are in some instances, “ certified to be correct” by the Board of Trustees of that Association.

People v. Brown

22 Cal. 2d 752 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1943

In People v. … (People v. Bartol, supra, 665 ; see, also, Nichols v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co., 178 Cal. 630, 632 [ 174 P. 319 ]; Juchert v. Tenent, 126 Cal.App. 216, 217 [ 14 P.2d 617 ]; Houghton v.

Flanagan v. Brown

70 Cal. 254 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1886

blank, and sues upon it in behalf of his principal, it is no defense for the maker to say that the plaintiff in the suit is not the owner, and this, as I understand it, is all that is really decided in the case of Curtiss v. … If his interest is only a right to share the proceeds which result from the execution of his power, the agent has not a power coupled with an interest. “ The case of Brown v.

Priest v. Brown

100 Cal. 626 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1893

(Dana v. Stanford, 10 Cal. 269 ; Low v. Wortman, 44 N. J. Eq. 202; Shelley v. Boothe, 73 Mo. 74 ; 39 Am. Rep. 481 ; Brashear v. West, 7 Pet. 614 ; Giddings v. Sears, 115 Mass. 505 .) … In Gregory v.

Brown v. Kentfield

50 Cal. 129 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

(Payne and Dewey v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 220 ; Hicks v. Coleman, 25 Id. 146; McCreery v. Everding, 44 Id. 249.) 3.

People v. Brown

59 Cal. 345 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1881

P.; Bloomer v. The State, 48 Md. 521 ; People v. Cotta, 49 Cal. 166, 171 ; People v. Geiger, id. 643.) … (State v. Porter, 34 Iowa, 131 ; Jackson v. State, 52 Ala. 305 .) 6.

People v. Brown

48 Cal. 253 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

Brown v. Campbell

110 Cal. 644 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1895

The case of Priest v. Brown et al., in which Joseph Brown and A. M. … (Priest v. Brown, 100 Cal. 626 ; Brown v. Campbell, 100 Cal. 635 ; 38 Am. St. Rep. 314 .)

Brown v. Pforr

38 Cal. 550 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

Johnson v. Brown

63 Cal. 391 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 1883

(Cannon v. Stockmon, 36 Cal. 539 ; Arrington v. Liscom, 34 Cal. 381 ; Langford v. Poppe, 56 Cal. 73 .) … (Sneed v. Osborn, 25 Cal. 626 ; Columbet v. Pacheco, 48 Cal. 395 ; Moyle v. Connolly, 50 Cal. 295 ; Biggins v. Champlin, 59 Cal. 113 ; Cooper v. Tierra, 59 Cal. 282 .)

Braun v. Brown

13 Cal. 2d 130 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1939

.; Mack v. Eummelen, 31 Cal. App. 506 [ 160 Pac. 1096 ] ; Kelly v. Smith, 204 Cal. 496, 501 [ 268 Pac. 1057 ].) In the case of Eggers v. … In Elliott v. Superior Court, 144 Cal. 501, 507 [ 77 Pac. 1109 , 103 Am. St.

Brown v. Olmsted

50 Cal. 162 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

(Griffith v. Grogan, 12 Cal. 320 ; Welch v. Allington, 23 Cal. 322 ; Brewster v. Bours, 8 Cal. 506 .) We think it unnecessary to discuss other points made by the appellant. We find no error in the record.

Diggins v. Brown

76 Cal. 318 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1888

(People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 19 and 20; 21 Am. Rep. 677 .) We therefore advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be reversed, with directions to dismiss the action. Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.

Brown v. Mason

155 Cal. 155 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1909

Lindley sent Brown to Mason in November, 1904. … (Coleman v. Meade, 13 Bush. 358; Charlton v. Wood, 11 Heisk. 19 .)

Whitmore v. Brown

207 Cal. 473 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1929

Board v. … Board v. Supervisors, supra).

Meyer v. Brown

65 Cal. 583 · California Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1884

For the government of that territory now known as the city and county of Sacramento, there shall be a board of supervisors; and the said board of supervisors and their successors in office shall be a body politic and corporate … (Roneden v. Jersey City, 17 Rep. 253; East Lincoln v. Davenport, 94 U. S. *591 801 ; Pompton v. Cooper Union, 101 U. S. 196 ; Sherman v. Simmons, 109 U. S. 737 ; Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U. S. 278 .)

Brown v. Tolles

7 Cal. 398 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

The respondent, who has filed a brief in this case, seems to rely on the fact that no motion was made for a new trial, and contends, on the authority of Hill v. White, and Brown v.

Brown v. Rea

150 Cal. 171 · California Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1907

(Aram v. Schallenberger, 41 Cal. 449 ; Bigley v. Nunan, 53 Cal. 403 ; Hogan v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 71 Cal. 87 , [ 11 Pac. 876 ].) … Some of the cases illustrating this rule are Payne v. McKinley, 54 Cal. 532 ; Dunn v. City of Austin, 11 S. W. (Tex.) 1125; Bowen v. Mauzy, 117 Ind. 258 , [ 19 N. E. 526 ]; Begein v. Anderson, 28 Ind. 79 ; Kingsbury v.

McCarthy v. Brown

113 Cal. 15 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1896

In Boles v. … (Jones v. Clark, 42 Cal. 180 ; Burton v. Burton, 79 Cal. 490 ; Edwards v. Sonoma Val. Bank, 59 Cal. 149 ; Bath v. Valdez, 70 Cal. 355 ; Spargur v. Heard, 90 Cal. 228 ; Millard v. Legion of Honor, 81 Cal. 343 .)