Case law

Regents of University of California v. Superior Court

17 Cal. 3d 533 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1976

(Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service Commrs. (1942) 21 Cal.2d 399 , 402 . . . .)” (City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 276-277 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 537 P.2d 1250 ].) … Co. v. Regents (1908) 153 Cal. 776 [ 96 P. 801 ]).

People v. Williams

61 Cal. 4th 1244 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2015

Rahin Brown was defendant‘s neighbor and friend in 1987. They played basketball and football together. Brown left home, joined the Navy, and went to college. … Brown was unaware of any bad behavior on defendant‘s part. In spite of defendant‘s convictions, Brown remained his friend and believed he had good qualities.

People v. Carrera

49 Cal. 3d 291 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1989

(People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 541-542 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ].) In People v. … {Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 448.) 22. Denial of Motion to Modify Sentence.

City of L.A. v. Cohn

101 Cal. 373 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1894

This report was ordered received and placed on file, and a full synopsis thereof was entered upon the minutes of the board. … In the later case of Simplot v. Chicago etc. By. Co., 16 Fed.

Berry v. Berry

145 Cal. 784 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1905

(Hatton v. Hatton, 136 Cal. 353 .) … (Deyoe v.

People v. Taylor

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 510 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2004

Opinion BROWN, J. A defendant shoots a woman, killing her. As a result, her fetus also dies. … In Keeler v.

Ex parte Kirby

76 Cal. 514 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1888

“And I further certify that during the said imprisonment of the said Kirby his conduct has been such as to entitle him, under the provisions of section 1590 of the Penal Code, and under the rules adopted by the state board … "People, plaintiff, v. James Kirby, defendant. Ho. 201. “ How comes the district attorney with the said defendant to the bar of this court for arraignment.

O'Brien v. Ballou

116 Cal. 318 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1897

He paid for gathering it, and the board, etc., of the harvesters. While in this condition, and some two weeks after it was harvested, the wheat was attached by defendant, S. D. … (Bernal v. Hovious, 17 Cal. 542 ; Visher v. Webster, 13 Cal. 58 .) The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and on the showing of plaintiff the contract was not void under the statute of frauds. 2.

City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co.

172 Cal. 332 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1916

Co. v. … Directly in point on this proposition are Kit-sap Co. v. Melker, 52 Wash. 49 , [ 100 Pac. 150 ]; State v. District Court (In re Board Park Commrs.), 87 Minn. 268 , [ 91 N. W. 1111 ]; Washburn v. Milwaukee etc.

Rice v. California Lutheran Hospital

27 Cal. 2d 296 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1945

(See Dietlin v. General American Life Ins. Co., 4 Cal.2d 336 [ 49 P.2d 590 ]; Frazee v. Fox Film Corp., 45 Cal.App. 661 [ 188 P. 286 ]; Parker v. Herndon, 19 Cal.App. 451 [ 126 P. 183 ]; Pedrow v. … (See Brown v. La Societe Francaise, 138 Cal. 475 [ 71 P. 516 ]; Inderbitzen v. Lane Hospital, 124 Cal.App. 462, 466 [ 12 P.2d 744 , 13 P.2d 905 ]; Bowman v. Southern Pac. Co., 55 Cal.App. 734 [ 204 P. 403 ].)

In Re Herrera

23 Cal. 2d 206 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1943

(Martin v. Superior Court, 194 Cal. 93, 105 [ 227 P. 762 ]; Brown v. City of Los Angeles, 183 Cal. 783, 789 [ 192 P. 716 ]; Reynolds v. Barrett, 12 Cal.2d 244, 249 [ 83 P.2d 29 ].) … (Boys’ *214 and Girls’ Aid Society v.

People v. Carter

48 Cal. 2d 737 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1957

Brown, Attorney General, Doris H. Maier and J. M. Sanderson, Deputy Attorneys General, and C. Keith Lyde, District Attorney (Butte) for Respondent. TRAYNOR, J. … Carter said nothing and stepped aside; Arbuckle went in, took the trousers from the ironing board, and departed. Arbuckle did not inform Mrs.

Scott v. Superior Court of Alameda County

205 Cal. 525 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1928

(Gage v. Atwater, 136 Cal. 170, 172 [ 68 Pac. 581, 582 ].) … (Bochm v. Spreckels, 183 Cal. 239, 247 [ 191 Pac. 5 ]; Flanagan v. Brown, 70 Cal. 254, 259 [ 11 Pac. 706 ].) Hagan’s interest was only a right to share the proceeds which might result from the execution of his power.

Burgesser v. Bullock's

190 Cal. 673 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1923

In the case of Davis v. … (See, also, Haines v. Fewkes, 190 Cal. 477 [ 213 P. 490 ].) On the other hand, in Klusman v. Pacific Elec. Ry.

Warnock v. Harlow

96 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1892

(Emerson v. Weeks, 58 Cal. 439 ; Ramirez v. Murray, 5 Cal. 222 .) … If, however,, counsel are right in their construction, Smith v. Hodsdon,. 78 Me. 180 , Collingwood v. Brown, 106 N. C. 362 , and Utley v. Fee, 33 Kan. 683 , cited by them, are in point; otherwise they are not.

Weinberg v. Weinberg

67 Cal. 2d 557 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1967

(Webster v. Webster, supra, 216 Cal. 485 , 488 ; Dallman v. … Hamilton whether or not to place the banker on its board of directors, but generally he participated only to a “limited extent” in policy decisions.

Hirbernia Savings & Loan Society v. City & County of San Francisco

139 Cal. 205 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1903

In National Bank v. … Co. v. Patterson, 154 U. S. 130 ; Cooley on Taxation, p. 88; Mitchell v. Board of Commissioners, 91 U. S. 206 ; Shotwell v. Moore, 129 U. S. 590, 596 .)

People v. Samuels

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 · California Supreme Court · Sep 21, 2005

Opinion BROWN, J. … (People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 398-399 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ].)

Kalis v. Shattuck

69 Cal. 593 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1886

In Ourings v. … So in Swords v. Edgar, 59 N.

People v. Seiterle

59 Cal. 2d 703 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1963

In the case of People v. … Brown on the other hand, is the question of the death penalty.” Defendant objected and asked the court to admonish the jury to disregard the statement.