Case law

Lestrade v. Barth

19 Cal. 660 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1862

(Arguello v. Edinger, 10 Cal. 160 ; Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Id. 248 ; and Weber v. Marshall, Id. 447.) … (Hunter v. Watson, 12 Cal. 363 , and cases there cited, and Pritchard v. Brown, 4 New Hamp. 404.)

City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell

32 Cal. 3d 47 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1982

(See County of Fresno v. Malmstrom (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 974, 983 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 777 ]; People v. Lodi High School Dist. (1899) 124 Cal. 694, 697 [ 57 P. 660 ]; Ruane v. … Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d. 475, 480 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 462 P.2d 580 ]; Morro Hills Community Services Dist. v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 765, 773 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 778 ].)

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

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 ].)

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.

Reynolds v. Lincoln

71 Cal. 183 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1886

(Brandt v. … Barstow, 50 Cal. 652 , and Brown v.

In Re Smith

193 Cal. 337 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1924

In determining any such per centum proper allowance may be made for items of board, lodging, or other consideration or privilege, or for differences arising by reason of rating the compensation otherwise than according to … The supreme court of the United States, in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U. S. 525 [24 A. L. R. 1238, 67 L. Ed. 785 , 43 Sup. Ct.

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.

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 .)

Miller v. City of Los Angeles

185 Cal. 440 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1921

Corp. v. Railroad Com., 169 Cal. 466 , [ 147 Pac. 118 ]; Hyatt v. Williams, 148 Cal. 585 , [ 84 Pac. 41 ]; Wichmann v. … Subdivision (g) of section 192, article XVIII, after authorizing the board of public service commissioners to construct, operate, maintain, and extend electric plants, systems, and equipments, declares that said board shall

People v. Erskine

247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 86 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 2019

Thomas Wegman, a psychologist with a board certification in neuropsychology, reviewed Erskine’s records and interviewed him in March 2004 over the course of about eight hours on two days to perform a neurological assessment … (People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 537, fn. 7, revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538; see also People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 379 (Kipp) [same].)

Traverso v. People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation

6 Cal. 4th 1152 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1993

(Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 571 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 557 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) … . *1163 (See People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 269 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 316 , 599 P.2d 622 ]; Smith v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 316, 327 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 704 ].)

Aden v. City of Vallejo

139 Cal. 165 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1903

The board of trustees are also made defendants, but for convenience of expression, the city will be referred to, eo nomine, as though the sole defendant. … (Schumacher v. Truman, 134 Cal. 430 , and cases cited, p. 432.)

Podrat v. Oberndorff

207 Cal. 457 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1929

In the case of Hardwick v. … In the case of Brown et al. v. Kolb, 92 S. C. 309 [ 75 S.

Christensen v. Superior Court

54 Cal. 3d 868 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1991

A decision is not authority for a proposition not considered in the court's opinion. ( People v. Myers (1987) 43 Cal.3d 250, 265, fn. 5 [ 233 Cal. Rptr. 264 , 729 P.2d 698 ]; see also Brown v. … (See, e.g., IFS Industries, Inc. v. Stephens (1984) 159 Cal. App.3d 740 [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 915 ]; Mount Vernon Memorial Park v. Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers (1978) 79 Cal. App.3d 874 [ 145 Cal.

Wilson v. Superior Court

34 Cal. 3d 777 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1983

People v. … (See Royer, supra, — U.S. at p. — [ 75 L.Ed.2d at p. 239 , 103 S.Ct. at p. 1326 ]; Dunaway v. New York (1979) 442 U.S. 200, 216-218 [ 60 L.Ed.2d 824, 838-839 , 99 S.Ct. 2248 ]; Brown v.

Gore v. Bingaman

20 Cal. 2d 118 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1942

(Clary v. Hoagland, supra; Scrimsher v. Reliance Rock Co., supra; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 44 U. S. (3 How.) 413, 424 [ 11 L. Ed. 658 ]; Lincoln Joint Stock Land Bank v. Brown, 224 Iowa 1256 [ 278 N. … Co. v. Jett, 175 Tenn. 295 [ 133 S. W. (2d) 997 ]; Huntington v. Westerfield, 119 La. 615 [ 44 So. 317 ]; Adams Express Co. v. Hoeing, 88 Ky. 373 [ 11 S. W. 205 ]; South Bend Home Teleg. Co. v.

Briggs v. Breen

123 Cal. 657 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1899

Suppose, for instance, that some board or officer is invested by law with the power to ascertain and fix the value of provisions. … The decision in Dwinelle v. Henriquez, 1 Cal. 387 , is not in conflict with the conclusions above stated.

Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc.

29 Cal. 4th 53 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2002

(State of South Dakota v. Brown (1978) 20 Cal.3d 765, 775 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 758 , 576 P.2d 473 ]; see also People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 Cal.4th 90, 101 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 610 , 939 P.2d 1310 ].) … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurred. The acronym was coined by Penelope Ganan and George W. Pring, professors at the University of Denver.

People v. Garbutt

197 Cal. 200 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1925

Nunley, 142 Cal. 441, 445 [ 76 Pac. 45 ], People v. Brown, 130 Cal. 591, 593 [ 62 Pac. 1072 ], People v. Bannon, 59 Cal. App. 50, 59 [ 209 Pac. 1029 ], and People v. Hinrich, 53 Cal. … (People v. Ward, 105 Cal. 340 [ 38 Pac. 945 ]; People v. Wong Chuey, 117 Cal. 630 [ 49 Pac. 833 ].)” See, also, People v.