Case law

Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

26 Cal. 3d 912 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1980

Co. v. Altfillisch Constr. Co., supra, 70 Cal.App.3d at p. 797 ; Crisci v. Security Ins. Co., supra, 66 Cal.2d at p. 429 ). … Co., supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 940 , quoting from Brown v. Superior Court (1949) 34 Cal.2d 559, 564 [ 212 P.2d 878 ]).

Lavine v. Jessup

48 Cal. 2d 611 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1957

The action commenced by plaintiff was a taxpayer’s suit against various defendants including members of the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County. … This is made clear by the fact that Egan v.

Kane v. Cook

8 Cal. 449 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

See, also, Kelliwin v. Woodworth, 5 John., 37 ; Spencer v. Brockway, 1 Ohio, 259; Evans v. Tatem, 9 Searg. & Rawle, 252; Borden v. Fitch, 15 Johnson, 140 ; Thurber v. Blackbourne, 1 New Hamp., 242; Rangely v. … In Brown v.

People v. Riser

47 Cal. 2d 566 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1956

(See, e.g., People v. Brown, 92 Cal.App.2d 360, 365 [ 206 P.2d 1095 ]; Commonwealth v. … Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115, 124 [ 76 S.Ct. 663 , 100 L.Ed. 1003 ]." "The government of a strong and free nation does not need convictions based upon such testimony.

Peck v. Vandenberg

30 Cal. 11 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1866

Row, if the case of Brown v. … Cutrer, 1 Rob. 367 , it seems to me, squarely overrules Brown v. Cobb.

Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.

14 Cal. 4th 434 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1996

Defendants provided negligent medical care on board ship outside of California, injuring the plaintiff. … Mosk, J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Rodabaugh v. Tekus

39 Cal. 2d 290 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1952

In Poncino v. … Brown, 84 Cal.App.2d 401, 408 [ 190 P.2d 958 ]), but was insufficient to warrant the application of the last clear chance doctrine in favor of plaintiffs.

County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court

4 Cal. 3d 545 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1971

(c), provides that “the court shall relieve the petitioner from the provisions of Section 945.4 [which bars claims not filed within 100 days] if the court finds the application [for leave to present a late claim] to the board … State of California (1933) 135 Cal.App. 738 [ 28 P.2d 61 ], had held that a court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain an action for tax refund until the claimant presented his claim to the state board of control.

Couts v. Cornell

147 Cal. 560 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1905

Similar views have been expressed and enforced by this court in Weber v. San Francisco, 1 Cal. 457 ; Hibernia S. and L Soc. v. Ordway, 38 Cal. 682 ; San Jose Gas Co. v. January, 57 Cal. 614 ; County of Los Angeles v. … Co. v. Dalton, 119 Cal. 606 , [ 51 Pac. 1072 ], and County of Los Angeles v. Ballerino, 99 Cal. 597 , [ 32 Pac. 581 ], or by a higher levy than the board had power to make, as in Quint v.

Pollack v. Department of Motor Vehicles

38 Cal. 3d 367 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1985

Brown as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION GRODIN, J. Once again we are called upon to interpret the ambiguous wording of a recently amended statute. … Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 [ 104 Cal.

Monroe v. Superior Court

28 Cal. 2d 427 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1946

He relies upon Long v. Long, 17 Cal.2d 409 [ 110 P.2d 383 ], and Tolle v. … In Baumgarten v.

Moore v. Smaw

17 Cal. 199 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

In Hicks v. … In the great case of The Queen v.

Lazar v. Superior Court

16 Cal. 2d 617 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1940

(Moog v. Moog, 203 Cal. 406 [ 264 Pac. 490 ] ; Smith v. Smith, 94 Cal. App. 35 [ 270 Pac. 463 ].) … (Ex parte Ambrose, 72 Cal. 398 [ 14 Pac. 33 ]; Watson v. Lawson, 166 Cal. 235 [ 135 Pac. 961 ]; Boyer v. Crichton, 100 Cal. App. 24 [ 279 Pac. 677 ] ; Rinaldo v. Board of Medical Examiners, 123 Cal.

Sprecher v. Adamson Companies

30 Cal. 3d 358 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1981

Agee (1977) 143 Ga.App. 55 [ 237 S.E.2d 522 ]); Pennsylvania (Barker v. Brown (1975) 236 Pa.Super. 75 [ 340 A.2d 566 ]); Rhode Island (Fabbri v. … (E.g., Mahurin v. Lockhart, supra, 390 N.E.2d 523 ; Barker v. Brown, supra, 340 A.2d 566 ; Kurtigan v. City of Worcester, supra, 203 N.E.2d 692 ; Dudley v. Meadowbrook, supra, 166 A.2d 743 .)

Folsom v. Butte County Assn. of Governments

32 Cal. 3d 668 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1982

At the time suit was filed the board of supervisors, which controlled a majority of seats on BCAG, took the position that added public transportation was not needed. … (c); Lewin v. Board of Trustees (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 977, 983-984 [ 133 Cal.Rptr. 385 ].) The court concluded on receipt of defendants’ letter that the cost award was premature.

People v. Jenkins

22 Cal. 900 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 2000

BROWN, J., Concurring. I concur in the judgment to affirm defendant’s conviction and penalty. … In United States v.

Getz Bros. & Co. v. Federal Salt Co.

147 Cal. 115 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1905

(Prost v. More, 40 Cal. 347 ; Arnot v. Pittston Coal Co., 68 N. Y. 558 ; 1 E mbrey v. Jemison, 131 U. S. 336 , 9 Sup. Ct. 776.) … (Santa Clara Mill Co. v. Hayes, 76 Cal. 387 1 , 18 Pac. 391 ; Vulcan Powder Co. v. Hercules Powder Co., 96 Cal. 510 2 , 31 Pac. 581 .)

People v. Banning Co.

166 Cal. 635 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1913

(See, also, People v. Morris, 77 Cal. 208 , [ 19 Pac. 378 ]; United States v. White, 9 Sawyer 131, [ 17 Fed. 561 ].) … As we have seen in the case of People v. California Fish Co., L. A.

People v. Arrighini

122 Cal. 121 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1898

In People v. … A different view was taken in People v. Johnson, 57 Cal. 571 . There, however, the constitutional provision was not considered. This plainly appears. It is said that People v. Brown, 72 N. Y. 571 , 28 Am.

Martin v. Becker

169 Cal. 301 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1915

McMurray v. Brown, 91 U. S. 257 , [ 23 L. Ed. 321 ], was an *312 action to enforce a mechanic’s lien given under the provisions of the federal statute. The trial court decreed the lien. … (Pease v. Kelly, 3 Or. 417 ; 6 Ves. 752; Lagow v. Badollet, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 416, 12 Am. Dec. 258 ; Gilman v. Brown, 1 Mason, 191 , [Fed. Cas. No. 5441]; Williams v. Roberts, 5 Ohio, 35; 4 Kent.