Case law

People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe

37 Cal. 2d 283 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1951

Rep. 1140, was an information for condemnation of a vessel after seizure for having prohibited gunpowder on board. The Attorney-General v. Jefferys [1824], 13 Price, 545, 147 Eng. … The Attorney General v. Brown [1801], Forrest, 110, 145 Eng. Rep. 1129, was an information for penalties, for assisting in unshipping spiritous liquors and tobacco before the duties were paid. The Attorney General v.

Michael G. v. Superior Court

44 Cal. 3d 283 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1988

(Bailey v. … (People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; Palermo v.

Cahill v. E. B. & A. L. Stone & Co.

153 Cal. 571 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1908

(Tucker v. New York etc. Co., 136 N. Y. 668 , [33 N. B. 335] ; Merryman v. Chicago etc. Co., 85 Iowa, 634 , [52 N. W. 545] ; Carson v. Chicago etc. Co., 96 Iowa, 583 , [ 65 N. W. 831 ] ; Brown v. European etc. … In Biggs v. Consolidated etc.

Warrick v. Superior Court

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 2005

BROWN, J., Dissenting.—Defendant’s arrest took place in a location known for “blatant use and sales of narcotics.” Police arrived on the scene. … (See, e.g., People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 869-870 [ 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 , 69 P.3d 446 ] [using “plausible” to mean believable]; People v.

Baugh v. Rogers

24 Cal. 2d 200 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1944

(See Milgate v. Wraith (1942), 19 Cal.2d 297, 303 [ 121 P.2d 10 ]; Brown v. Roland (1940), 40 Cal.App.2d Supp. 825 [ 104 P.2d 138 ].) … v.

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.)

McNutt v. Hannon

183 Cal. 537 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1920

Co. v. Haines was partnership property is not supported by the evidence. The partnership was employed at an agreed fee of one thousand dollars. … Assuming for the purposes of the decision that he was entitled to more than one-half of such fees (see Little v. Caldwell, 101 Cal. 553 , [ 40 Am. St.

Minturn v. Burr

16 Cal. 107 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

, some short time afterwards, was admitted into possession, and also some proof conducing to show that Burr had notice of the taking of this possession, and advised the taking or holding, Burr being the President of the Board … (Evill v. Conwell, 2 Blackf. 134 .) 4. There is nothing in the point that the complaint does not state an actual possession.

Reclamation District No. 551 v. County of Sacramento

134 Cal. 477 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1901

In was held in People v. … (Hensley v.

Gavin v. Protestant Episcopal Bishop

217 Cal. 763 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1933

Such cases as Diamond v. … (Wilkinson v. Adam, 1 V. & B. 422, 462, 35 Eng. Rep. 163, 179.)

People v. Smith

106 Cal. 73 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1895

(People v. Gray, 66 Cal. 271 ; People v. Barnes, 48 Cal. 551 ; People v. Hartman, 62 Cal. 562 ; People v. McNutt, 64 Cal. 116 .) … (Brown v. Commonwealth, 76 Pa. St. 319; Commonwealth v. Ferrigan, 44 Pa. St. 386; Fernandez v. State, 4 Tex. App. 419; Heath v. Commonwealth, 1 Rob. (Va.) 735; People v. Foley, 64 Mich. 148 ; People v.

Hildebrand v. State Bar

18 Cal. 2d 816 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1941

(Furman v. State Bar, 12 Cal. (2d) 212 [ 83 Pac. (2d) 12 ]; Bar Association of San Francisco v. Sullivan, 185 Cal. 621 [ 198 Pac. 7 ].) … (Golden v. State Bar, 213 Cal. 237 [ 2 Pac. (2d) 325 ]; Aydelotte v. State Bar of California, 209 Cal. 737 [ 290 Pac. 41 ].)

North Alaska Salmon Co. v. Pillsbury

174 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1916

(Stevens v. Brown, 20 W. Va. 450, 459 .) … This has been the uniform course of ruling under the English statute (Hicks v. Maxton, 1 B. W. C. C. 150; Tomalin v. S. Pearson & Son, Ltd. [1909], 2 K. B. Div. 61; Schwartz v. Indiana Rubber etc. Co. [1912], 2 K. B.

Buckeye Refining Co. v. Kelly

163 Cal. 8 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1912

(Hogan v. Black, 66 Cal. 41 , [ 4 Pac. 943 ] ; Dodd v. Brott, 1 Minn. 270 , [ 66 Am. Dec. 541 ] ; Frissell v. Haile, 18 Mo. 18 ; Chicago C. Ry. Co. v. Blanchard, 37 Ill. App. 391 ; McCarver v. Nealey, 1 G. … (Brown v. Mann, 71 Cal. 192 , [ 12 Pac. 51 ] ; Byrne v. Byrne, 94 Cal. 576 , [ 29 Pac. 1115 , 30 Pac. 196 ].)

Carter v. Chotiner

210 Cal. 288 · California Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1930

(County of Los Angeles v. Hollywood Cemetery Assn., 124 Cal. 344 [ 71 Am. St. Rep. 75 , 57 Pac. 153 ].) … Jur. 284, see. 20; Robinson v. Baugh, 31 Mich. 290, 293 ; Davis v. Spragg, 72 W. Va. 672, 676 [47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 173, 79 S.

People v. Seymour

16 Cal. 332 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

(Brown v. Veazie, 25 Maine, 359; Doughty v. Hope, 1 Comstock, 79; 3 Denio, 594.) II. … Among other provisions illustrative of this position, section four of the Act of 1859, 21, is cited: “ The title to the premises shall vest in the Board of Supervisors, and be and remain under their direction and control

Simons Brick Co. v. City of Los Angeles

182 Cal. 230 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1920

But, as is said in Gardella v. … (Detroit v. Detroit City R. R. Co., 56 Fed. 867; St. Louis A. & T. H. R. R. Co. v. Belleville, 122 Ill. 376 , [ 12 N. E. 680 ] ; Ashland v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 105 Wis. 398 , [ 80 N. W. 1101 ];. Sutro v.

Lopez v. Ledesma

12 Cal. 5th 848 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 2022

The PAPA and the regulations promulgated by the Physician Assistant Board set forth the medical services that a licensed physician assistant “may perform.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, former § 3502, subd. (a); see Cal. … Name of Opinion Lopez v.

Jacobs v. Ludemann

137 Cal. 176 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1902

It is alleged that heretofore, in an action brought by this plaintiff in the superior court of Contra Costa County, entitled William Jacobs v. Robert F. Simpson and Thomas J. … Defendant was able to satisfactorily show to the court his receipts and disbursements in managing the land and the reasonable value of plaintiff’s board and lodging was shown to be seventy-five cents per day.

Engebretson v. Gay

158 Cal. 30 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1910

In State v. Kerr, 8 Mo. … The question was determined by the supreme court of Indiana in favor of such a provision for attorneys’ fees in Brown v. Central Bermuidez Co., 162 Ind. 452 , [ 89 N.