Case law

Kalt v. Youngworth

16 Cal. 2d 807 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1940

(Tiffany, Real Property, 3d ed., sec. 1055, p. 253; Brown, Personal Property, sec. 50; Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, sec. 150, p. 447.) … Ed. 504 ]; Devol v. Dye, 123 Ind. 321 [ 24 N. E. 246 , 7 L. R. A. 439] ; Minot v. Tilton, 64 N. H. 371 [ 10 Atl. 682 ]; Gulick v. Gulick, 39 N. J. Eq. 401; Myrover v. French, 73 *814 N. C. 609; Read v.

Morris v. Municipal Court

32 Cal. 3d 553 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1982

While Crownover was pending before us, the United States Supreme Court upheld the regulations on nude entertainment promulgated by the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. (California v. … (See Saxe v. Brennan (E.D.Wis. 1976) 416 F.Supp. 892, 894-895 , affd. (7th Cir. 1976) 544 F.2d 521 ; Attwood v. Purcell (D.Ariz. 1975) 402 F.Supp. 231, 236 ; Koppinger v.

Davis v. Fresno Unified School Dist.

California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2023

(See Kaatz v. … of cheating, the hiring of various principals and school administrators, and the cancer illness of a board member.

People v. Daveggio & Michaud

231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 646 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2018

After the last witness testified, but before closing argument, the prosecution sought the admission of the same poster board. … (See People v. Romero and Self (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1, 42 & fn. 15; see also People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391–392 & fn. 2; Victor, supra, 511 U.S. at pp. 7–17; People v.

McShane v. Carter

80 Cal. 310 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1889

These deeds were authorized by the boards of directors of said respective companies, and were executed by the proper officers, but were not ratified by the stockholders of said corporations. … (Perrin v. Garfield, 37 Vt. 312 ; Morgan v. Mason, 20 Ohio, 401; 55 Am. Dec. 464 ; New Ipswich Factory v. Batchelder, 3 N. H. 190; 14 Am. Dec. 346 ; Neaderhouser v. State, 28 Ind. 257 ; Whitney v.

Pigeon Point Ranch, Inc. v. Perot

59 Cal. 2d 227 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1963

(George v. Bekins Van Storage Co., 33 Cal.2d 834, 850-851 [ 205 P.2d 1037 ]; Easton v. Ash, 18 Cal.2d 530, 539 [ 116 P.2d 433 ]; Tyrrell v. Baldwin, 78 Cal. 470, 471-472 [ 21 P. 116 ]; White v. … (DiGenova v. State Board of Education, 57 Cal.2d 167, 178-180 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 367 P.2d 865 ] ; Vangel v. Vangel, 45 Cal.2d 804, 809-810 [ 291 P.2d 25 , 55 A.L.R.2d 1385 ] ; Tomaier v.

People v. Mayberry

15 Cal. 3d 143 · California Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1975

In People v. … Brown, 22 Cal.2d 752, 756-758 [ 141 P.2d 1 ], However, the instant instruction, unlike the instruction in Brown , is peculiarly applicable to a defendant.

Mar Shee v. Maryland Assurance Corp.

190 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1922

Hercules Powder Co., 39 Cal.App. 223 [ 178 P. 531 ]; Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 39 Cal.App. 738 [ 179 P. 697 ]; Maupin v. Solomon, 41 Cal.App. 323 [ 183 P. 198 ]. … In the case of Albert v.

People v. Hernandez

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 602 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 2003

(People v. Brown (1993) 6 Cal.4th 322, 335-336 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 710 , 862 P.2d 710 ]; see also People v. Barrera (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 541, 547-552 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 ].) … Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571, 581 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 , 828 P.2d 147 ].)

Hagan v. Superior Court

53 Cal. 2d 498 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1960

(Atkinson v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.2d 338, 342 [ 316 P.2d 960 ] ; Bowles v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.2d 574, 582 [ 283 P.2d 704 ]; see also City & County of San Francisco v. … (c) The holders of the voting shares of the corporation are so divided into factions that they cannot agree upon or elect a board of directors consisting of an uneven number.

People v. Bostick

62 Cal. 2d 820 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1965

In Escobedo v. … In People v.

Union Savings Bank of San Jose v. Dunlap

135 Cal. 628 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1902

In Argues v. … (Argues v. Union Savings Bank, 133 Cal. 139 .) We find nothing in Bank of National City v.

People v. Bush

68 Cal. 623 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1886

State, 2 Ohio St. 296 ; Oancemi v. People, 18 N. Y. 128 ; Wilson v. State, 16 Ark. 601 ; Bond v. State, 17 Ark. 290 ; Brown v. State, 16 Ind. 496 .” In the case of State v. Berlin et al., 24 La. … (Sneed v. State, 5 Ark. 432 ; S. C., 41 Am. Dec. 102 ; Cole v. State, 10 Ark. 578 ; Sweeden v. State, 19 Ark. 209 .)

Cal. Safe Deposit & Tr. Co. v. Sierra Valleys Ry.

158 Cal. 690 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1910

(Short on Law of Railway Bonds, sec. 75 ; Jones on Corporation Bonds and Mortgages, sec. 267 ; Amy v. Dubuque, 98 U. S. 470 ; Clark v. Iowa City, 20 Wall. 585 ; Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. S. 668 ; Nash v. … (Brown v. Martin, 25 Cal. 82 ; Bliss v. Sneath, 119 Cal. 526 , [ 51 Pac. 848 ].)

People v. Christian S.

7 Cal. 4th 768 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1994

(Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 724 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ].) We *775 must begin with the words of the statute. (Ibid.) … (Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 830 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 679 , 843 P.2d 624 ].) That history, though not unequivocal, leads to the same conclusion.

Sanguinetti v. Sanguinetti

9 Cal. 2d 95 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1937

(People v. Hill, 2 Cal. App. (2d) 141-147 [ 37 Pac. (2d) 849 ].). It does not apply where the period is measured in days. (Helphenstine v. Vincennes Nat. Bank, 65 Ind. 582 [ 32 Am. Rep. 86 ]; Brown v. … (Figoni v. Figoni, supra; Schneider v. Schneider, supra; Coats v. Coats, 160 Cal. 671 [ 118 Pac. 441 , 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 844] ; Macchi v. La Rocca, 54 Cal. App. 98 [ 201 Pac. 143 ]; Buckley v.

Loving & Evans v. Blick

33 Cal. 2d 603 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1949

Gladney, 128 Tex. 354 [ 98 S.W.2d 351 ], where a dispute arose between the parties as a result of trading in “futures” upon the Chicago Board of Trade. The matter was submitted to arbitration. … (Franklin and Roberts v.

In Re Estate of Gregory

133 Cal. 131 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1901

They are: Strode v. Russell, 2 Vern. 620 (1708); Jackson v. Kniffen, 2 Johns. 31 1 (1806); Provis v. Reed, 5 Bing. 435 (1829); Shailer v. Bumstead, 99 Mass. 112 ; Stevens v. Vancleve, 4 Wash. C. C. 262 ; Robinson v. … Contestants rely upon Throckmorton v. Holt, 12 App. D. C. 552, and cases cited; also, Johnson v. Brown, 51 Tex. 65 ; Hoppe v. Byers, 60 Md. 381 ; Colvin v. Warfold, 20 Md. 367 ; Neel v. Satton, 40 Pa. St. 483; Boylan v.

County of Los Angeles v. Faus

48 Cal. 2d 672 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1957

Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U.S. 358 , 363 et seq. [ 53 S.Ct. 145 , 77 L.Ed. 360 , 85 A.L.R. 254 ]; cf. Traynor, J., Sutter Basin Corp. v. Brown, 40 Cal.2d 235, 249 [ 253 P.2d 649 ]; People v. … The board has power to purchase as well as to condemn land."

Burke v. Maguire

154 Cal. 456 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1908

(Moore v. Steele, 149 Cal. 304 , [ 86 Pac. 693 ]; Morrow v. Barker, 119 Cal. 67 , [ 51 Pac. 12 ]; Humboldt Soc. v. Burnham, 111 Cal. 345 , [ 43 Pac. 971 ]; McGrath v. … (Ellison v. Halleck, 6 Cal. 393 ; Williamson v. Blattan, 9 Cal. 501 .) Afterwards, in Brown v. Martin, 25 Cal. 91 , an exception to this rule was made in eases where the bar!