Case law

Johnson v. Department of Justice

60 Cal. 4th 871 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 2015

“This is particularly true in constitutional cases,” where, as here, “ ‘correction through legislative action is practically impossible.’ ” (Payne, at p. 828; accord, Board of Supervisors v. … (Board of Supervisors v.

Lakeside Ditch Co. v. Crane

80 Cal. 181 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1889

The statute does not confer upon the board of water commissioners the right to take away the interest which a prior appropriator has in the waters of a stream. … (Oroville & V. R. R. v. Plumas Co., 37 Cal. 361 .)

Chinn v. Gunn

148 Cal. 755 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1906

The case is similar in its facts to that of Johnson v. Gunn, ante, p. 745, [ 84 Pac. 665 ], but it differs in one important particular. … And neither he nor the board of supervisors is authorized to determine the question conclusively.

California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams

11 Cal. 2d 221 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1938

(Verzan v. McGregor, 23 Cal. 339 ; Berry v. Kowalsky, 95 Cal. 134 [ 30 Pac. 202 , 29 Am. St. Rep. 101 ]; Spotton v. Dyer, 42 Cal. App. 585 [184 Pac. 23]; Shelley v. Hart, 112 Cal. … See, also, Shean v. Weeks, 176 Cal. 592 [ 169 Pac. 231 ]; Gianelli v. Globe Grain & Milling Co., 48 Cal. App. 103 [ 191 Pac. 720 ].)

Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.

2 Cal. 3d 493 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1970

Assn. v. Siliznoff, 38 Cal.2d 330, 341 [ 240 P.2d 282 ]; Guillory v. Godfrey, 134 Cal. … App. 677 [ 145 S.E.2d 776 ]; Ruiz v. Bertolotti (1962) 37 Misc.2d 1067 [ 236 N.Y.S.2d 854 ]; Browning v. Slenderella Systems of Seattle (1959) 52 Wn.2d 440 [ 341 P.2d 859, 865 ]; Amos v. Prom (N.D.Iowa 1953) 115 F.

Minton v. Cavaney

56 Cal. 2d 576 · California Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1961

De California v. Resnick, supra, 47 Cal.2d 792, 796, 797 ; Riddle v. Leuschner, supra, 51 Cal.2d at 580 ; Stark v. Coker, 20 Cal.2d 839, 846-849 [ 129 P.2d 390 ]; Shafford v. Otto Sales Co. … Moreover, section 800 of the Corporations Code provides that “. . . the business and affairs of every corporation shall be controlled by, a board of not less than three directors.”

In Re Marriage of Milhan

13 Cal. 3d 129 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1974

(See Carlson v. … Board of Administration, 3 Cal.3d 32, 46 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 61 , 473 P.2d 765 ] [state employee’s retirement pension]; Gelfand v. Gelfand, 136 Cal.App. 448, 455-456 [ 29 P.2d 271 ] [insurance policy].)

Lukrawka v. Spring Valley Water Co.

169 Cal. 318 · California Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1915

In the case of Bothwell v. Consumers’ Co., 13 Idaho, 568 , [24 L. R A. (N. … (Price v. Riverside L. & I. Co., 56 Cal. 431 ; Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co., 139 Cal. 22 , [ 72 Pac. 395 ]; Fellows v. Los Angeles, 151 Cal. 52 , [90 Pac. 137]; South Pasadena v. Pasadena Land etc.

City of Los Angeles v. Lankershim

160 Cal. 800 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1911

We *802 need do no more than refer to such familiar cases as Ex parte Mirande, 73 Cal. 365 , [ 14 Pac. 888 ]; Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 230 , [ 24 Pac. 383 ; City of Pasadena v. … Stimson, 91 Cal. 238 , [27 Pac. 604]; County of El Dorado v. Meiss, 100 Cal. 268 , [ 34 Pac. 716 ]; Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136 , [ 44 Pac. 915 , 45 Pac. 1057 ]; Van Harlingen v. Doyle, 134 Cal. 53 , [54 L. R.

Mazzera v. Wolf

30 Cal. 2d 531 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1947

Untrecht, 26 Cal.2d 261, 270 [ 158 P.2d 3 ] ; Brown v. Spencer, 163 Cal. 589 [ 126 P. 493 ] ; Couts v. Winston, 153 Cal. 686 [ 96 P. 357 ]) and a resulting trust follows which is also exempt from the statute of frauds. … (Viner v. Untrecht, supra; Watson v. Poore, 18 Cal.2d 302 [ 115 P.2d 478 ].)

Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 603 · California Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2000

Like the companion case of Moshonov v. … (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 28 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 ] (Moncharsh); Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.

In Re Jackson

61 Cal. 2d 500 · California Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1964

(See Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms & Paroles (1958) 357 U.S. 214 [ 78 S.Ct. 1061 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1269 ].) … Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 [ 73 S.Ct. 397, 420-422 , 97 L.Ed. 469 ].)

Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Industrial Accident Commission

200 Cal. 579 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1927

“When an employee, working on board a vessel in navigable waters [italics ours], sustains injuries there, and seeks damages from the employer, the applicable legal principles are very different from those which would control … (Grant, Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, supra; Slate Industrial Com., etc., v. Nordenholt Corp., supra; City of Oakland v. Industrial Acc. Com., supra.)

People v. Collins

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 836 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2001

BROWN, J., Concurring. … Here, unlike the situation in People v.

Associated Creditors' Agency v. Davis

13 Cal. 3d 374 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1975

State Board of Equalization (1940) 40 Cal.App.2d 280, 284 [ 104 P.2d 847 ].) … See also Reynolds v. State Board of Equalization (1946) 29 Cal.2d 137, 140 [ 173 P.2d 551 , 174 P.2d 4 ]; and Weichman v. Vetri (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 717, 719 [ 248 P.2d 783 ].)

People v. Johnson

47 Cal. 3d 1194 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1989

In People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 538-545 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ] (revd. on other grounds California v. … Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 456 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].) 2. Modification of Section 190.3, Factor (f).

People v. Kelly

146 Cal. 119 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1905

Lightfoot, keeper of the boarding-house at which Myrtle, Case, and Kelly put up prior to the commission of the crime; who testified that Case and the defendant registered under the names of Russel and Truan. … (People v. Hickman, 113 Cal. 86 .) 13.

People v. Birks

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 848 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1998

BROWN, J. I fully concur in the determination, long overdue, to overrule People v. … (See Salas v.

Brailsford v. Blue

57 Cal. 2d 335 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1962

(French v. Jordan, 28 Cal.2d 765, 770 [ 172 P.2d 46 ].) Under such circumstances, the primary election is in legal effect a general election. (Immel v. Langley, 52 Cal.2d 104, 106 [1] [ 338 P.2d 385 ].) … (Barber v. Palo Verde etc. Co., 198 Cal. 649, 651 [2] [ 246 P. 1044 ].)

Price v. Riverside Land & Irrigating Co.

56 Cal. 431 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

(Moses on Mandamus, 155,171; State v. Hartford & New Haven R. R. Co. 29 Conn. 538 ; The Borough of Uniontown v. Commonwealth, 34 Pa. St. 293; Maddox v. Graham, 2 Metc. Ky. 65; Fremont v. Crippen, 10 Cal. 211 ; Napa V. … Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Napa County, 30 id. 438.)