Case law

Dow v. Sunset Telephone & Telegraph Co.

157 Cal. 182 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1910

(McKay v. Southern Bell Tel. Co., 111 Ala. 337 , [ 56 Am. St. Rep. 59 , 19 South. 695 , 31 L. R. A. 589]; Brown v. Consolidated etc. Power Co., (Mo.) 109 S. W. 1032 ; Hebert v. Lake Charles etc. … (Sappenfield v. Main St. R. R. Co., 91 Cal. 48 , [ 27 Pac. 590 ]; Limberg v. Lumber Co., 127 Cal. 604 , [ 60 Pac. 176 ]; Helling v. Schindler, 145 Cal. 313 , [ 78 Pac. 710 ].)

Fields v. Sanders

29 Cal. 2d 834 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1947

Likewise, in Andrews v. … (Gordoy v. Flaherty, 9 Cal.2d 716 [ 72 P.2d 538 ]; Peccolo v. City of Los Angeles, 8 Cal.2d 532 [ 66 P.2d 651 ]; Kish v. California State Automobile Assn., 190 Cal. 246 [ 212 P. 27 ] ; Martinelli v.

Brock v. Superior Court

12 Cal. 2d 605 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1939

(Bueneman v. City of Santa Barbara, 8 Cal. (2d) 405, 407 [ 65 Pac. (2d) 884 , 109 A. L. R. 895]; Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 211 Cal. 304 [ 295 Pac. 14 ]; Wheeler v. Herbert, 152 Cal. 224 [ 92 Pac. 353 ]; Schofield v. … Board of Supervisors, 189 Cal. 254 [ 208 Pac. 304 ]; Mordecai v. Board of Supervisors, 183 Cal. 434 [ 192 Pac. 40 ].)

Newman v. Wells Fargo Bank

14 Cal. 4th 126 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1996

J., Mosk, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. … Proc., § 902; Garrison v. Board of Directors (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1670 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 214 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 135, p. 145.)

Superior Insurance v. Superior Court

37 Cal. 2d 749 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1951

(See Brown v. Superior Court (1949), 34 Cal.2d 559, 561-562 [ 212 P.2d 878 ].) [2] Here, as in Demaree v. … (Corum v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 67 Cal.App.2d 891 [ 155 P.2d 710 ]; Van DerHoof v. Chambon, 121 Cal.App. 118 [ 8 P.2d 925 ]; see 32 Cal. L. Rev. 202 .)

Gerdes v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

219 Cal. 459 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1933

Among the men to whom he spoke was Commissioner Myers of the Board of Public Works, to whom he pointed out the gas leak. … (Ed wards v. Gullick, 213 Cal. 86 [ 1 Pac. (2d) 11 ]; Gonzalez v. Nichols, 110 Cal. App. 738 [ 294 Pac. 758 ].) We find no other errors which require a reversal. The judgment is affirmed.

Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los Angeles

44 Cal. 2d 272 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1955

State Board of Tax Comrs., 174 N.Y. 417 [ 67 N.E. 69, 72 , 63 L.R.A. 884 , 105 Am.St.Rep. 674 ]; McQuillin on Municipal Corporations [3d ed. 1950], vol. 12, § 34.14.) … (Thompson v. Board of Supervisors, 111 Cal. 553, 557-558 [ 44 P. 230 ].)

Anderson v. Schloesser

153 Cal. 219 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1908

(Young v. Rosenbaum, 39 Cal. 646 ; Hyman v. Coleman, 82 Cal. 650 , [ 16 Am. St. Rep. 178 , 23 Pac. 62 ]; Knowles v. Sandercock, 107 Cal. 629 , [ 40 Pac. 1047 ].) … S. 741 , and similar cases (Brown v. Campbell, 100 Cal. 641 , [ 38 Am. St. Rep. 314 , 35 Pac. 433 ] ; Murray v. Murray, 115 Cal. 266 , [ 56 Am. St.

Town of Mill Valley v. House

142 Cal. 698 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1904

In Rice v. Board of Trustees, 107 Cal. 398 , it was *700 held that under the provisions of the same act there could be a valid issue of bonds for the construction of a sewer, and in the ease of City of Redondo Beach v. … (Electric Light Co. v. San Bernardino, 100 Cal. 348 .)

Marin Municipal Water District v. Chenu

188 Cal. 734 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1922

(Madera v. Black, 181 Cal. 310 [ 184 Pac. 397 ].) … This doctrine has been frequently expounded and applied in this state (Balthasar v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 187 Cal. 302 [19 A. L.

Kirk v. Santa Barbara Ice Co.

157 Cal. 591 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1910

(Colegrove v. Smith, 102 Cal. 223 , [ 36 Pac. 411 ]; Luce v. Holloway, 156 Cal. 162 , [ 103 Pac. 886 ].) … (Los Angeles Cemetery Assoc. v. City of Los Angeles, 103 Cal. 461 , [ 37 Pac. 375 ]; Chapell v. Schmidt, 104 Cal. 511 , [ 38 Pac. 892 ]; Allen v. McKay, 120 Cal. 337 , [ 52 Pac. 828 ] ; Edwards v.

O'Brien v. King

174 Cal. 769 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1917

(Chipman v. Morrill, 20 Cal. 130, 137 ; Ashley v. Vischer, 24 Cal. 322 , [ 85 Am. Dec. 65 ]; Louvall v. Gridley, 70 Cal. 507 , [ 11 Pac. 777 ] ; Lattin v. Gillette, 95 Cal. 317 , [ 29 Am. St. … (See, also, Sannickson v. Brown, 5 Cal. 57 ; Ashley v. Vischer, 24 Cal. 322 , [ 85 Am. Dec. 65 ].) None of the cases decided in this state, and cited above, will be found to conflict with this view.

Ex parte Sternes

77 Cal. 156 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1888

(In re Grove Street, 61 Cal. 453 ; see also Segee v. … (Dorente v. Sullivan, 7 Cal. 279 ; Peck v. Strauss, 33 Cal. 685 .)

People v. Duncan

53 Cal. 3d 955 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1991

Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ] (revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ]). … In People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512 , we noted that instruction in the terms of the statute had the potential to confuse jurors and thus suggested the adoption of an instruction like the one given here.

People v. Anderson

47 Cal. 4th 92 · California Supreme Court · Jul 23, 2009

Although some differences in application arise, both federal and California law generally treat greater and lesser included offenses as the "same offense" for purposes of double jeopardy. ( Id. at pp. 660-661; see Brown v … The high court explained that continued prosecution did not implicate the prohibition on multiple punishments for the same offense (see Brown v.

Silica Brick Co. v. Winsor

171 Cal. 18 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1915

(Bank of Shasta v. Boyd, 99 Cal. 604 , [ 34 Pac. 337 ] ; Hoyt v. Beach, 104 Iowa, 257 , [ 65 Am. St. Rep. 461 , 73 N. W. 492 ]; Thigpen v. Mississippi Central R. R. Co., 32 Miss. 347 ; Williamson v. … In Bank of Shasta v.

People v. Salazar

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 16 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2005

Wood v. … (In re Brown, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 884 .)

Franz v. Mendonca

131 Cal. 205 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1900

In Cox v. … Justice Story, in Ricard v.

In Re Brumback

46 Cal. 2d 810 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1956

v. … Accord: People v. January, supra, 70 Cal. 34, 35 ; People v.

Tucker v. Barnum

144 Cal. 266 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1904

This act was considered in Dwyer v. … (Dwyer v. Parker, 115 Cal. 544 .)