Case law

Otto v. Long

127 Cal. 471 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1900

(Rosenberg v. Ford, 85 Cal. 610 ; Sullivan v. Sullivan, 99 Cal. 193 ; Chaffee v. Browne, 109 Cal. 211 .) … This position seems to follow from Biddel v.

Ghirardo v. Antonioli

14 Cal. 4th 39 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1996

(a); Brown v. … (First Nationwide Savings v.

McDonald v. S. Cal. Ry.

101 Cal. 206 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1894

Respondent claims that it was so held in Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 678 . … To the same effect is Hoffeditz v. Southern Penn. etc. Ry. Co., 129 Pa. St. 264. This decision was affirmed in Updegrove v. Pennsylvania etc. R. R. Co., 132 Pa. St. 541, and in McMinn v. Pittsburgh etc. R. R.

Murphy v. Burch

46 Cal. 4th 157 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2009

v. … (E.g., Leo Sheep, supra, 440 U.S. at pp. 687-688; Brown v. Northern Hills Regional Railroad Authority, supra, 732 N.W.2d at pp. 739-740; Granite Beach v.

California Trust Co. v. Jones

24 Cal. 2d 191 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1944

(See Brown, Problems of Construction Arising In The Law of Property—Particularly In The Law of Future Interests, 79 Pa.L.Rev. 385, 389.) … (Whall v. Converse, 146 Mass. 345, 348 [ 15 N.E. 660 ]; Gilman v. Congregational Home Missionary Society, 276 Mass. 580 [ 177 N.E. 621 ]; Matter of Bump, 234 N.Y. 60 [ 136 N.E. 295 ].)

Andrews v. Waldo

205 Cal. 764 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1928

(Steinberg v. Waldo, 90 Cal. App. 18 [ 265 Pac. 536 ].) Concurrently the district court of appeal (Cal. … (L uckehe v. First Nat. Bank of Marysville, 193 Cal. 184 [ 223 Pac. 547 ]; Brown v. Central Land Co., 42 Cal. 257, 260 ; 25 Cal. Jur., p. 420.)

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.

Burnett v. Piercy

149 Cal. 178 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1906

In Carey v. … Following Carey v. Brown, 58 Cal. 180 , we hold that this is an admission of the due service of a properly addressed notice of appeal upon all the parties signing the stipulation.

Biggs Ditch Co. v. Jongste

24 Cal. 2d 298 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1944

Brown testified that since 1911 he had resided and owned land in the area served by plaintiff company and had held various offices in the company; that he had been familiar with the Jongste property for the thirty years since … (See McMorris v. Pagano (1944), 63 Cal.App.2d 446, 451 [ 146 P.2d 944 ], and cases there cited.) For the reasons above stated the judgment is affirmed. Gibson, C.

Maltaman v. State Bar

43 Cal. 3d 924 · California Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1987

(See Baranowski v. State Bar (1979) 24 Cal.3d 153, 162 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 752 , 593 P.2d 613 ].) … As we recently noted in Greenbaum v.

People v. Hines

61 Cal. 2d 164 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1964

This court held in People v. … In People v.

In Re Security Finance Co.

49 Cal. 2d 370 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1957

(See Bowditch v. … Lane & Co. v.

In Re the Guardianship of Coburn

165 Cal. 202 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1913

(People v. Board of Supervisors, 16 N. Y. 424 ; Reiser v. Wm. Tell Savings Fund Assoc., 39 Pa. St. 137; Lambertson v. McClelland, 2 Pa. St. 22; Lincoln etc. Assoc. v. Graham, 7 Neb. 173 ; Union Iron Co. v. … (See, also, Stockdale v. Insurance Companies, 20 Wall. 323 , [ 22 L. Ed. 348 ] ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. McCollock, 24 Fed. 667 ; State v. Board of Commrs., 83 Kan. 199 , [ 110 Pac. 93 ].)

California Employment Commission v. Kovacevich

27 Cal. 2d 546 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1946

In Stuart v. … Under the principles governing the decision in the cases of North Whittier Heights Citrus Assn. v. National Labor Relations Board, supra, 109 F.2d 76 , and California Employment Com. v.

Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase

3 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1992

Joint Board (1959) 52 Cal.2d 568, 589 [ 343 P.2d 23 ].) … (Grunwald-Marx, Inc. v. L.A. Joint Board, supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 589 ; Nogueiro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1195 ; Ray Wilson Co. v.

State Bar v. Langert

43 Cal. 2d 636 · California Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1954

(Spears v. … As was said in Spears v.

Williams v. Long

139 Cal. 186 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1903

(Gray v. Tubbs, 43 Cal. 363 ; Martin v. … (Hannan v. McNickle, 82 Cal. 126 ; Rhorer v. Bila, 83 Cal. 54 .) This disposes of all the points made on the motion for a nonsuit, and we think it was properly denied.

Broadman v. Commission on Judical Performance

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 408 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1998

In *1102 Pickering, supra, 391 U.S. 563 , a board of education had dismissed a high school teacher for publicly criticizing the board’s allocation of school funds between athletics and education and the board’s method of … (See, e.g., Perry v. Sindermann (1972) 408 U.S. 593 [ 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 ] [refusal to rehire teacher who had testified before state legislature]; Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v.

Adoption of Pior

43 Cal. 2d 472 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1954

43 Cal.2d 472 (1954) Adoption of DONNA LYNN PIOR, a Minor, RALPH BENNETT et al., Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE OF THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, Respondent. S. F. No. 19046. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. … Brown, Attorney General, Richard L. Mayers, Deputy Attorney General, Clock, Waestman & Clock, Loeb & Loeb, Edward W. Sheridan and Herman F. Selvin as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondent. *473 TRAYNOR, J.

Rojas v. Superior Court

15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 643 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2004

Co. v. … (People v.