Case law

People v. Aldridge

35 Cal. 3d 473 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1984

(People v. Bower, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 645 ; People v. Loewen, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 124 ; see also Brown v. Texas (1979) 443 U.S. 47, 52 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 357 , *479 362-363 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 ].) … Finally, in Flores v.

Potrero Nuevo Land Co. v. All Persons

158 Cal. 731 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1910

The act of 1855 wrought a change in the personnel of the board of commissioners. … (Jeffers v. Easton, Eldridge Co., 113 Cal. 352 , [ 45 P. 680 ]; Summerville v. Stockton Milling Co., 142 Cal. 529 , [ 76 P. 243 ].)

People v. Webb

6 Cal. 4th 494 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1993

(See People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 541 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ] [Brown].) Defendant’s penalty trial occurred in mid-1988, after Davenport and Brown were decided. … People v.

Labory v. Los Angeles Orphan Asylum

97 Cal. 270 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1893

In Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U. … And in Semple v.

People v. Dillon

34 Cal. 3d 441 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1983

(People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 534 P.2d 65 ]; see People v. Odle (1951) 37 Cal.2d 52, 57 [ 230 P.2d 345 ].) … Code, § 190.5; People v. Davis (1981) 29 Cal.3d 814 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 521 , 633 P.2d 186 ].)

Lasar v. Johnson

125 Cal. 549 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1899

In Presbyterian Church v. Cooper, 112 N. Y. 524 , 8 Am. St. … Both of the cases cited (Barnes *554 v. Perine, 12 N. Y. 18 , and Roberts v. Cobb, 103 N. Y. 600 ), as we understand them, were supported on this principle.

People v. Walters

98 Cal. 138 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1893

We do not think it necessary to refer specially to any case except People v. Cunningham, 66 Cal. 671 . … At his suggestion the board of supervisors employed other counsel to conduct the prosecution, which they did without objection, but without any formal order of court made in pursuance of section 1130 of the Penal Code.

People v. Cook

41 Cal. 3d 373 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1985

Brown (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 283, 289-292 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 749 ].) … Others, such as Triggs, Krivda, Stoner, and Brown , all supra, suggest that one may expect some casual public observation without necessarily consenting to police surveillance.

General Electric Co. v. Federal Employees' Distributing Co.

45 Cal. 2d 891 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1955

Walton Brown for Defendant and Appellant. SHENK, J. This is an appeal by the plaintiff General Electric Company from a judgment of nonsuit. … (See Kofsky v.

People v. Madden

2 Cal. 3d 1017 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1970

Amphetamine tablets were found in a brown bag in a drawer next to the kitchen sink—right beneath a kitchen window that had been broken into about a month prior to the arrest. … In Aguilar v.

Savings Bank of San Diego v. Central Market Co.

122 Cal. 28 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1898

Doubtless it was upon this ground that the learned judge of the trial court granted the motion for a nonsuit,- basing its decision upon the ruling in Brown v. Willis, 67 Cal. 235 . … (Barbieri v. Ramelli, 84 Cal. 154 .)

Thompson v. Smith

28 Cal. 527 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1865

(Dickinson v. Maguire, 9 Cal. 48 .) In discussing the meaning of the term unlawful entry, as used fin the Act relating to forcible entries in Janson v. Brooks, ante, we approved of the following language of Mr. … is all in the record—it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the plaintiff was himself acting in bad faith and endeavoring to acquire and maintain a possession by unlawful means; that he hoped, by putting up a few boards—which

Beckett v. Kaynar Manufacturing Co.

49 Cal. 2d 695 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1958

(iv) June 25, 1956, both parties consented to an extension of time as requested by the board of arbitrators in which they could make their award. … (Marshall v. Hancock, 80 Cal. 82, 84 [ 22 P. 61 ]; Ogden v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 26, 28 [ 276 P.2d 146 ]; Newman v. Sunde, 23 Cal.App.2d 332, 335 [2] [ 73 P.2d 260 ]; Abrams v.

Bullfrog Goldfield R. R. Co. v. Jordan

174 Cal. 342 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1917

tender to respondent, Secretary of State of the state of Cali-" fornia, and offered for filing in the office of that official a certified copy of its articles of incorporation, and a certified copy of a resolution of its board … Co. v. Comnonwealth, 207 Mass. 381 , [ 93 N. E. 831 ]; S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 212 Mass. 35 , [Ann. Cas. 1913C, 805, 98 N. E. 1056 ]); while almost precisely in point are Sleicher v.

Reed v. Norman

41 Cal. 2d 17 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1953

Kent, 219 Cal. 231 [ 35 P.2d 977 ] ; People v. Stewart, 115 Cal.App. 681 [ 2 P.2d 195 ]), for personal property (Mannion v. Baldwin, supra, [partnership interest] ; Herkner v. … (See Hogan v. Ingold, 38 Cal.2d 802 [ 243 P.2d 1 ] ; Anderson v. Derrick, 220 Cal. 770, 773-774 [ 32 P.2d 1078 ] ; Whitten v. Dabney, 171 Cal. 621, 624 [ 154 P. 312 ] ; Shenberg v.

East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Railroad Commission

194 Cal. 603 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1924

Co. v. … A. 755, 28 Pac. 272, 675 ]; Bettencourt v. Industrial Acc. Com., 175 Cal. 559 [166 Pac. 323]; Robertson v. Library Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 [ 69 Pac. 88 ]; Mesmer v. Board etc., 23 Cal.

Cabell v. State of California

67 Cal. 2d 150 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1967

(a) ; Heieck & Moran v. City of Modesto (1966) 64 Cal.2d 229, 231-232 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 411 P.2d 105 ] ; County of Los Angeles v. … Superior Court (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 675 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 23 ] ; Loop v. State of California (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 591 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 909 ] ; Dahlquist v.

Henshaw v. Belyea

220 Cal. 458 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1934

He endeavored to stop it by twice placing a board in front of the hind wheel. … (See, also, Henry v. Cleveland etc. R. Co., 67 Fed. 426 ; Liming v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 81 Iowa, 246 [ 47 N. W. 66 ].) In Thompson v.

People v. Hoffman

195 Cal. 295 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1925

Reed Orchard Co., 169 Cal. 545, 554 [ 147 Pac. 238 ]; People v. Mazzurco, 49 Cal. App. 275, 280 [ 193 Pac. 164 ]; People v. Chapman, 55 Cal. App. 192, 201 [ 203 Pac. 126 ] ; People v. McCalla, 63 Cal. … I am in full accord with the rule announced by this court in People v.

Himmelman v. Carpentier

47 Cal. 42 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

The same point was made in Randolph v. Bayue, 44 Cal. 366 , and decided against the views of the appellant. … third, fourth and fifth points relate to the notice inviting sealed proposals, and are in substance: First, that the notice called for grading the roadway one foot below the official grade, which was more work than the Board