Case law

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.

Godber v. City of Pasadena

206 Cal. 90 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1928

Ramish, 142 Cal. 686, 692 [ 76 Pac. 661 ]; Lent v. Tillson, 72 Cal. 404, 429 [ 14 Pac. 71 ]). This principle has also been stated in Larsen v. … (Duncan v. Ramish, 142 Cal. 692 [ 76 Pac. 661 ], Lent v. Tillson, 72 Cal. 429 [ 14 Pac. 71 ].)” See, also, Cutting v. Vaughn, 182 Cal. 151 , 156 *94 [ 187 Pac. 19 ], and Rutledge v. Eureka, 195 Cal. 404 [ 234 Pac. 82 ].

People v. Barrett

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

(People v. … People 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Crocker v. Riley

196 Cal. 366 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1925

(Knight v. Stevens, 66 App. Div. 267 [ 72 N. Y. Supp. 815 ].) It is not the rule in this state that the legatee of a bequest for the benefit of charity shall be a corporation. … Co. 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.

Ziegler v. Reuze

27 Cal. 2d 389 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1945

She also testified that she had complained to the Board of Health concerning “the Tounseleys”; that Mr. Sheehy had “violated a city ordinance”; that she “never had nothing to do with Mrs. … Regardless of the other issues, the finding as to defendant’s receipt of and reliance upon the advice of counsel (see 16 Cal.Jur. 741 § 11; Richter v. Neilson (1936), 11 Cal.App.2d 503, 508 [ 54 P.2d 54 ]; Sebastian 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 ].)

Beal v. Beal

218 Cal. 755 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1933

Cases cited by appellant, such as Parker v. Parker, 55 Cal. App. 458 [ 203 Pac. 420 ], and Johnson v. Johnson, 104 Cal. … The case of *760 Armstrong v. Armstrong, 132 Cal.

Chapman v. Polack

70 Cal. 487 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1886

(Bates v. Ill. C. R. R. Co., 1 Black, 207 .) By the plats of public surveys, lands must be identified and boundaries ascertained in all cases of the kind. (Brown’s Lessee v. Clements, 3 How. 671 ; Gazzam v. … (Vance v. Fore, 24 Cal. 436 ; Mayo v. Mazeaux, 38 Cal. 442 ; Serrano v. Rawson, 47 Cal. 52 ; Black v. Sprague, 54 Cal. 266 .) As was said in Vance v.

Thomas v. Pacific Beach Co.

115 Cal. 136 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1896

It was held in Chatfield v. … (Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 494 ; 24 Am. Rep. 610 ; Hintrager v. Truat, 69 Iowa; 746; Steele *143 v. Steele, 25 Pa. St. 154; Bills v. Silver King Min. Co., 106 Cal. 9 .)

Rattray v. Scudder

28 Cal. 2d 214 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1946

(See Sipper v. Urban, 22 Cal.2d 138 [ 137 P.2d 425 ]; Russell v. Miller, 21 Cal.2d 817 [ 136 P.2d 318 ]; Dare v. Medical Examiners, 21 Cal.2d 790 [ 136 P.2d 304]; Laisne v. California St. … As said in the case of Smith v.

Lee v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.

91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 509 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000

(See Camren v. State (Okla.Crim.App. 1991) 815 P.2d 1194, 1195 [“[t]he plain language” of a statute similar to section 529 covers impersonation of the deceased]; see also People v. … That issue currently is pending before this court in People v. Rathert * (Cal.App.)

Steele v. Steele

124 Cal. 533 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1899

In Packard v. … (Citing Easterbrooks v. Tillinghast, 5 Gray, 17 ; Ackroyd v. Smithson, 1 Brown Ch. 503; Cox v. Parker, 22 Beav. 168. See, also, 1 Perry on Trusts, 4th ed., sec. 160.)

Love v. Anchor Raisin Vineyard Co.

5 Cal. Unrep. 425 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1896

It does not appear, so far as we have discovered, of how many directors the board consisted. The minute-book of defendant was missing, and was claimed to have been lost. … This form of specification is clearly insufficient: Adams v. Helbing, 107 Cal. 298 , 40 Pac. 422 ; Moore v. Moore (Cal.), 34 Pac. 90 ; Spotts v. Hanley, 85 Cal. 165 , 24 Pac. 738 ; Eddelbuttel v.

Hallinan v. State Bar

33 Cal. 2d 246 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1948

The Board of Governors of the State Bar recommended the suspension of petitioner from the practice of law for one year. … (Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co., 26 Cal.2d 412 [ 159 P.2d 958 ].) Following the reversal it was agreed between petitioner and Roche that a settlement of $40,000 was acceptable.