Case law

People v. Capistrano

59 Cal. 4th 830 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2014

(Uttecht v. Brown, supra, at p. 7 [“Deference is owed regardless of whether the trial court engages in explicit analysis regarding substantial impairment . . . .”].) … (People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 439-440 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 182 , 99 P.3d 505 ]; People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 403-404.)

Parsons v. Robinson

206 Cal. 378 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1929

In Knaak v. Brown, 115 Neb. 268 [51 A. L. R. 242, 212 N. W. 434 ], it is said: ‘ ‘ Indeed, this bank by the filing of its transcript, obtained a lien. … See, also, Ackerman v. Gorton, 67 N. Y. 63 ; Rose v. Hatch, 125 N. Y. 427 [ 26 N. E. 467 ] ; Leeds v. Wakefield, 10 Gray (Mass.), 514 ; Smyth v. Anderson, 31 Ohio St. 144 ; Baker v. Copenbarger, 15 Ill. 103 [ 58 Am.

People v. Rae

66 Cal. 423 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1885

What he did was this: In company with a confederate, who passed by the name of Turner, he boarded an emigrant train of the Central Pacific Bail-road Company, and engaged the prosecuting witness, who was a passenger on the … Still closer as respects the facts, and therefore more directly in point, is the case of Loomis et al. v. The People, 67 N. Y. 322 .

People v. Bolton

215 Cal. 12 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1932

(People v. Thomson, supra; Herman v. State, 75 Miss. 340 [ 22 South. 873 ]; Keifer v. State, 199 Ind. 10 [ 154 N. E. 870 ]; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 [ 181 N. W. 850 ].) … (People v. Costa, 24 Cal. App. 739 [ 142 Pac. 508 ]; People v. Oldham, 111 Cal. 648 [ 44 Pac. 312 ] ; Brown v. State, 20 Ala. App. 39 [ 100 South. 616 ].)

Story v. Christin

14 Cal. 2d 592 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1939

(Attorney-General v. State Board Judges, 38 Cal. 291, 296 .) It is a matter of common knowledge that in the nursery business the young trees often remain in the soil for much longer than one year. … (Shasta Lumber Co. v. McCoy, 85 Cal. App. 468 [ 259 Pac. 965 ]; Charles J. Off & Co. v. Morehead, 255 Ill. 40 [ 85 N. E. 264 , 126 Am. St. Rep. 189 , 14 Ann. Cas. 434, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 167]; Swift & Co. v.

Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Ass'n

42 Cal. 3d 929 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1986

Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813, 822 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 342 ].) … (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 ].)

Kockemann v. Bickel

92 Cal. 665 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1892

assignment of the certificate of sale, and “ inclosed and protected the same with a substantial fence, excepting a small gateway on the front end of said lot, which opened on the street; that said fence was composed of posts, boards … (Wilson v. Atkinson, 77 Cal. 485 .)

Gay v. Gay

146 Cal. 237 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1905

In Bohnert v. … (Johnson v. Brown, 115 Cal. 697 .)

Campbell v. Regents of University of California

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 320 · California Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2005

(Flores v. … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurred. Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied May 18, 2005. [1] 1 Westlake Community Hosp. v.

Semi-Tropic Spiritualists' Ass'n v. Johnson

163 Cal. 639 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1912

This implies an agreement to pay a quantum, meruit (Toomy v. Dunphy, 86 Cal. 643 , [ 25 Pac. 130 ].) … (Amestoy v. Electric Rapid Transit Co., 95 Cal. 314 , [ 30 Pac. 550 ]; Matteson v. Wagoner, 147 Cal. 742 , [ 82 Pac. 436 ].) Judged then by this rule the complaint was good as against a general demurrer.

Hunt v. Davis

135 Cal. 31 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1901

The case, we think, comes directly, within the authority of Shorb v. … (Shorb v. Beaudry, 56 Cal. 450 , and Charter v. San Francisco etc. Co., 19 Cal. 247 , there cited; Cornell v. Corbin, 64 Cal. 200 ; Kohl v. Lilienthal, 81 Cal. 397 ; Behlow v. Fischer, 102 Cal. 214 -215.)

Fischer v. State Bar

6 Cal. 2d 671 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1936

6 Cal.2d 671 (1936) SIDNEY FISCHER, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. L. A. No. 15593. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. June 30, 1936. Sidney Fischer, in pro. per., for Petitioner. … conveyance action was filed, petitioner told him that he was already in the illegal transaction and that he had better sign the answer which set up the purported transfers. [1] The committee recommended disbarment and the Board

People v. King

5 Cal. 3d 458 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1971

Deputy Lambe then directed defendant to remove herself from the bed; and, without having to move any bedding or clothing, he looked under the bed with his flashlight and saw a brown paper sack. … As stated by this court in Duke v.

People v. Hernandez

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 509 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 2000

*528 BROWN, J., Concurring. I agree with the disposition, but reach this conclusion through a somewhat different analysis. … (See People v.

Matter of Russell

163 Cal. 668 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1912

(Von Schmidt v. Widber, 105 Cal. 157 , [ 38 Pac. 682 ]; Hyatt v. Williams, 148 Cal. 585 , [ 84 Pac. 41 ]; Platt v. San Francisco, 158 Cal. 82 , [ 110 Pac. 304 ].) … Louis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 149 U. S. 465 , [ 37 L. Ed. 810 , 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 990]; Northwest etc. Co. v. St. Charles, 154 Fed. 388 , and Muscogee etc. Co. v. Hall, 4 Ind. *681 Ter. 18, [ 64 S. W. 603 ].

People v. Kelii

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 674 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1999

(People v. Woodell, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 452 .) … J., Baxter, J. and Brown, J., concurred. A11 further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

People v. Mullings

83 Cal. 138 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1890

In Bigler v. … For instance, counsel for respondents cites People v. Brown, 76 Cal. 574 .

Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson

243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 2019

Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1063 (Park)). … Tamborelli Law Group and John V. Tamborelli for Defendants and Respondents Leonard Bloom and U.S. Capital LLC. Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Thomas B. Brown and Amy E.

State of California v. Superior Court (Lyon)

29 Cal. 3d 210 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1981

(See, e.g., State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., supra, 429 U.S. 363, 375 [ 50 L.Ed.2d 550, 561 ]; Barney v. Keokuk, supra, 94 U.S. 324, 338 ; Hardin v. … He relies upon cases which recognize the protection of property rights afforded by the federal and state Constitutions. ( Board of Regents v.

Skinner v. City of Santa Rosa

107 Cal. 464 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1895

The case of Moore v. City of Walla Walla, 60 Fed. … (Judson v. City of Bessemer, 87 Ala. 240 ; Trustees of University v. Moody, 62 Ala. 389 ; Moore v. City of Walla Walla, 60 Fed. Rep. 961.)