Case law

Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc.

8 Cal. 4th 532 · California Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1994

Powerine employees directed Irwin employees George Short and Robert Brown to remove piping and install a blind flange on a valve in an area of the Powerine refinery. … (Solgaard v. Guy F.

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.)

Mitchell v. Southern Pacific Railroad

87 Cal. 62 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1890

(Boyce v. Cal. Stage Co., 25 Cal. 460 ; Lawrence v. Green, 70 Cal. 417 ; 59 Am. Rep. 428 ; Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574 ; 13 Am. St. Rep. 175 ; Breen v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 109 N. … (Twomley v. C. P. N. & E. R. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 160 ; 25 Am. Rep. 162 ; Iron Railroad Co. v. Mowery, 36 Ohio St. 418 ; 38 Am. Rep. 597 .) In Buel v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 31 N. Y. 319 , 88 Am.

People v. City & County of San Francisco

2 Cal. Unrep. 812 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1887

Dec. 151 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255 , 4 Pac. 619 , 10 Pac. 674 ; Le Roy v. Dunkerly, 54 Cal. 452 . There is a distinction between the case of Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. (U. S.) 471, 13 L. … Upon the allegations of the complaint, and the authority of More v.

Krause v. Durbrow

127 Cal. 681 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1900

In Bruch v. … In Cullen v.

Sewell v. Price

164 Cal. 265 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1912

The rule is thus stated in Brown v. Campbell, 100 Cal. 635 , [ 38 Am. St. … (Windhaus v. Bootz, 92 Cal. 617 , [ 28 Pac. 557 ].)

County of San Mateo v. DELL J.

46 Cal. 3d 1236 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1988

(c), as added by Stats. 1972, ch. 1406, § 31.7, pp. 2983-2984; see id., as amended by Stats. 1980, ch. 1166, § 22.1, pp. 3927-3928; see also § 11402 [relative to ‘boarding homes’].)” (County of San Mateo v. … (See, e.g., Dandridge v.

Belt v. Davis

1 Cal. 134 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1850

In the case of Loring v. … The same practice is asserted in the following authorities: Brinckerhoff v. Brown, 7 John. Ch. Rep. 217; 1 Wash. R. 162; 5 Mum. 467, 483; 6 id. 142. The same .rule holds good in the case of a chancery plea.

Kastel v. Stieber

215 Cal. 37 · California Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1932

“In Bentson, Administrator, etc., v. Brown, 186 Wis. 629 [38 A. L. R. 1417, 203 N. … (Saxe v. Terry, 140 Wash. 503 [ 250 Pac. 27 ]; Blood v. Austin, 149 Wash. 41 [ 270 Pac. 103 ].) The supreme court of Wisconsin, in the case of Bentson v. Brown, 186 Wis. 629 [38 A. L. R. 1417, 203 N.

People v. Tufunga

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 143 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1999

In People v. … (See People v.

Goldwater v. Oltman

210 Cal. 408 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1930

(Rand v. Morse, 289 Fed. 339 ; Hart v. Seymour, 147 Ill. 598 [ 35 N. E. 246 ]; Williams v. Boston, 208 Mass. 497 [ 94 N. E. 808 ]; Frost v. Thompson, supra.) … (Cowan v. Abbott, 92 Cal. 100 [ 28 Pac. 213 ]; Rucker v. Hall, 105 Cal. 425 [ 38 Pac. 962 ]; Estrella Vineyard Co. v. Butler, 125 Cal. 232 [ 57 Pac. 980 ] ; Murphy v. Crowley, 140 Cal. 141 [ 73 Pac. 820 ]; Figlietti v.

Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center

23 Cal. 3d 899 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1979

Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477, 488 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ].) … Wilson v.

Curle v. Superior Court of Shasta County

103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 751 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2001

(People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 652 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573 , 941 P.2d 752 ]; People v. Brown (1993) 6 Cal.4th 322, 334 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 710 , 862 P.2d 710 ]; People v. … In James G. v.

Williams v. Covillaud

10 Cal. 419 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

(Leavitt v. Savage, 16 Maine, 72; Bailey v. Adams, 10 New Hamp., 162; Hoyt v. French, 4 Foster, 198 ; Joslyn v. Smith, 13 Verm., 353 ; Wheeler v. Washburn, 24 Verm., 293 ; Chace v. Brooks, 5 Cush., 43 ; Hoff *426 man v. … Covington, 9 S. and M., 470; Anderson v. Marmon, 7 B. Monr., 217; Sawyer v. Patterson, 11 Ala., 523 ; Bray’s Ex’rs v. Brown, 22 Ala., 263 ; Mass v. Hall, 5 Exch., 46; Phillips v. Rounds, 33 Maine, 357; Thomas v.

People v. Jones

51 Cal. 4th 346 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 2011

Brown, supra, at p. 402); (5) use of the phrase “so substantial” in the standard jury instructions is unconstitutional (People v. … Brown, supra, at p. 402); 7 (15) California’s sentencing scheme violates equal protection guarantees (People v.

People v. Cowan

50 Cal. 4th 401 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 2010

Uttecht v. Brown, supra, 551 U.S. at p. 18 ; People v. … (People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 467-468.)

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 ].)

Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Pasadena City Junior College District

59 Cal. 2d 241 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1963

Roberts v. Security T. & S. … The case of Suhr v.

Ballentine v. Superior Court

26 Cal. 2d 254 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1945

(In re Reilly, *258 17 Cal.App.2d 55, 61 [ 61 P.2d 469 ]; Ex parte Brown, 66 Cal.App. 534, 537 [ 226 P. 650 ]; Selowsky v. … (Moore v. Justices of Municipal Court of City of Boston, 291 Mass. 504 [ 197 N.E. 487 ]; Lilly-Brackett Co. v.

People v. Barrett

54 Cal. 4th 1081 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 2012

(People v. … People v.