Case law

Alvarez v. Brannan

7 Cal. 503 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

The case of Burrows v. Lock, 10 Vesey, Jr., R., 475, is in point. … In support of this ground, the learned counsel have referred to several authorities, and among others to the cases of Brown v. Haff & Lyons, 5 Paige, 235 , and of Winne v. Reynolds, 6 Paige, 407 .

In Re Cox

3 Cal. 3d 205 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1970

Code, § § 51, 52.)” 6 ( 37 Cal.2d at p. 716 ; see Tarbox v. Board of Supervisors (1958) 163 Cal. App.2d 373, 378 [ 329 P.2d 553 ].) … Brown v. Louisiana (1966) 383 U.S. 131,143,147-148 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 637, 646, 648-649 , 86 S.Ct. 719 ]. (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); NAACP v. Button (1962) 371 U.S. 415, 432 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 405, 417 , 83 S.Ct. 328 ].)

Lynch v. Spilman

67 Cal. 2d 251 · California Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1967

(Stewart v. California Medical etc. Assn. (1918) 178 Cal. 418, 421 [ 176 P. 46 ] ; see also Hallinan v. Prindle (1934) 220 Cal. 46, 49 [ 29 P.2d 202 ] ; Armstrong v. … In Walsh v.

Estate of Filtzer

33 Cal. 2d 776 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1949

(Graham v. Bennet, 2 Cal. 503, 506 .) … (See Kyne v. Kyne, 38 Cal.App.2d 122, 131-132 [ 100 P.2d 806 ], citing Paxton v. Paxton, 150 Cal. 667 [ 89 P. 1083 ]; also Kyne v. Kyne, 60 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 140 P.2d 886 ].)

Fernandez v. Tormey

121 Cal. 515 · California Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1898

Code, sec. 2778, subd. 2; Oaks v. Scheifferly, 74 Cal. 478 ; Elder v. Kutner, 97 Cal. 490 ; Ide v. Spencer, 50 Vt. 293 ; Shepard v. Shepard, 6 Conn. 37 .) … (V ogan v. Caminetti, 65 Cal. 438 .)

People v. Mancebo

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 550 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 2002

(Dis. opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 756.) … (Dis. opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 760.) Section 1203.06 prescribes grounds for probation ineligibility. As such, it is inapposite here because probation is not punishment (see People v.

Dept. Finance v. Com. on State Mandates

California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 2016

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE et al., ) ) Plaintiffs and Respondents, ) ) S214855 v. … August 29, 2016, and appearing in the California Official Reports at 1 Cal.5th 749, is modified as follows: On page 768 of the published opinion, a footnote is inserted at the end of the sentence that reads: “The board

Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines

56 Cal. 2d 498 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1961

In Holder v. … In Wilson 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.

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 .)

Bowman v. Bowman

29 Cal. 2d 808 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1947

(Keck v. Keck, 219 Cal. 316, 322 [ 18 P.2d 338 ] ; Stevens v. Stevens, 215 Cal. 702, 704 [ 12 P.2d 432 ] ; Samter v. Klopstock Realty Co., 31 Cal.App.2d 532, 535 [ 88 P.2d 250 ] ; Overell v. … (Bastajian v. Brown, 19 Cal.2d 209, 214 [ 120 P.2d 9 ].)

Porter v. Bakersfield & Kern Electric Railway Co.

36 Cal. 2d 582 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1950

(Doyle v. Loyd (1941), 45 Cal.App.2d 493 [ 114 P.2d 398 ]; Fietz v. … “The cases of Artukovich v. Astendorf (1942), 21 Cal.2d 329 [ 131 P.2d 831 ] and Redlands etc. Sch. Dist. v.

People v. Grubb

63 Cal. 2d 614 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1965

But we recognized a limitation of the application of the statute, saying “Manifestly one who goes to a bus station or railroad depot and waits for the purpose of buying a ticket, boarding the conveyance, meeting a relative … Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1965) ante, pp. 222, 227 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 869 , 404 P.2d 477 ]; People v. Buese (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 802, 805 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 102]; People v. Ferguson, supra, 129 Cal.App. 300, 304 .)

Easterbrook v. City & County of San Francisco

5 Cal. Unrep. 341 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1896

The ease is, we think, brought within the spirit of the rule enunciated by the United States circuit court in Liebman v. City and County of San Francisco, 11 Saw. 147 , 24 Fed. 705 , and in Elberg v. San Luis Obispo Co. … Co. v. San Diego Co. (decided August 21, 1895), 112 Cal. 314 , 41 Pac. 423 , 44 Pac. 571 .

Cavert v. Alderman

1 Cal. Unrep. 73 · California Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1859

Deck v. Gherke is supported by Wren v. Span, 1 How. (Miss.) 119; Campbell v. Young, 3 How. (Miss.) 303; Wilson v. Walker, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 216; Brown v. Hill, 27 Miss. 51 ; Rawlins v. Poindexter, 27 Miss. 64 . … In Knight v.

Business Title Corp. v. Division of Labor Law Enforcement

17 Cal. 3d 878 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1976

Moreover, the court in Gough v. … The court in Doyle v.

Scovill Manufacturing Co. v. Skaggs Pay Less Drug Stores

45 Cal. 2d 881 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1955

It is claimed by the defendant that this court receded from its holding in the Max Factor ease in State Board of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners (1953), 40 Cal.2d 436 [ 254 P.2d 29 ]. … Code, §§ 9560-9567) invalid: first, as an improper exercise of the police power, and secondly, as unlawfully delegating legislative power to fix prices to a board composed of interested members of the industry.

People v. City of San Buenaventura

213 Cal. 637 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1931

(See, also, Fragley v. Phelan, 126 Cal. 383, 403 [ 58 Pac. 923 ].) … (Stevenson v. Colgan, 91 Cal. 649 [ 25 Am. St. Rep. 230 , 14 L. R. A. 459, 27 Pac. 1089 ]; People v. Sacramento Drainage Dist., 155 Cal. 373 [ 103 Pac. 207 ]; Taylor v. Cole, supra; Allen v. State, 114 Ariz. 458 [44 L.

First Nat'l Bank of Bridgeport v. Perris Irrigation Dist.

107 Cal. 55 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1895

On May 2, 1893, the defendant by its board of directors allowed and approved the account of the . … (Board of Education v. Blake (Cal., Dec. 3, 1894), 38 Pac. Rep. 536 .)

Bensley v. Mountain Lake Water Co.

13 Cal. 306 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

(See Stone v. Commercial R. R. Co. 18 Eng. Chan. 122; Agas v. Regents’ Canal Co. Cooper, 77; Bonaparte v. The Camden and Amboy R. R. Co. 1 Bald. C. C. 232.) … Even in respect to executory agreements, we held in Green v.