Case law

In Re Young

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 2004

(People v. … (Craven v.

People v. Sanchez

70 Cal. 2d 562 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1969

Pate, supra, 367 U.S. 433, 440 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 948, 953 , 81 S.Ct. 1541 ]; Fikes v. Alabama, supra, 352 U.S. 191 ) and that the use of the confession offends a “sense of justice” (Brown v. … I think there is no question about it. ’ ’ 11 Citing inter alia Brown v. Mississippi (1936) 297 U.S. 278, 287 [ 80 L.Ed. 682, 687 , 56 S.Ct. 461 ]; Chambers v.

Estate of Goldberg

10 Cal. 2d 709 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1938

App. 420 [ 229 Pac. 898 ], Estate of Wilson, 184 Cal. 63, 68 [ 193 Pac. 581 ], Weedon v. Power, 202 Ky. 542 [ 260 S. W. 385 ], Ball v. Hophins, 254 Mass. 347 [ 150 N. E. 434 ], Payne v. Brown, 164 Ga. 171 [ 137 S. … In the case of Wilder v.

Tulare Savings Bank v. Talbot

131 Cal. 45 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1900

While it is true that a contract of subscription may be modified or annulled only by the unanimous consent of the stockholders, or by the board of directors duly authorized thereto *49 (Pacific Fruit Co. v. … (West v. Crawford, 80 Cal. 19 ; Kohler v. Agassiz, 99 Cal. 14 ; Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 .)

People v. Uhlemann

9 Cal. 3d 662 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1973

Brown, 200 Cal.App.2d 111, 117 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 36 ]; People v. White, 180 Cal.App.2d 99, 103 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 261 ]; People v. … Godlewski, supra, 22 Cal.2d 677, 682-683), failure to exclude unauthorized persons from the courtroom (People v. Brown, supra, 200 Cal.App.2d 111, 117 ), and furtherance of justice (People v.

Taboada v. Sociedad Espanola De Beneficencia Mutua

191 Cal. 187 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1923

Supp. 293, 294 ] ; Fritz v. Much, 62 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 69, 74.) In Von Arx v. … And in Davis v. Hunter (Ind. App.), 138 N.

Weir v. Mead

101 Cal. 125 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1894

(Citing Bean v. Parker, 17 Mass. 591 ; Wood v. Washburn, 2 Pick. 24 ; Sharp v. United States, 4 Watts, 21 ; Fletcher v. Austin, 11 Vt. 447 ; Johnson v. … On the other hand, the last case to which our attention is called, holding the other way, is a decision by the supreme court of South Dakota in Board of Education v. Sweeney, 1 S. Dak. 642.

City of Los Angeles v. Southern Pacific Railroad

67 Cal. 433 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1885

The validity of the ordinance upon which this action is founded was passed upon in the case of City of Los Angeles v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 61 Cal. 59 . … The case of The City of Los Angeles v. The Los Angeles Water Company, 61 Cal. 65 , is not in point.

Santa Barbara County Water Agency v. All Persons & Parties

53 Cal. 2d 743 · California Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1960

Agency v. All Persons, 47 Cal.2d 699 [ 306 P.2d 875 ]) at pages 702 to 707. What was there said need not be repeated here. It is reaffirmed. … Dist. v.

People v. Stansbury

4 Cal. 4th 1017 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1993

(People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1277 [ 232 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 729 P.2d 115 ]; People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 541.) … Assuming, without deciding, the continuing vitality of Brown (see People v.

City Council of San Jose v. Goodwin

196 Cal. 274 · California Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1925

The city relies on the ease of Bigelow v. Board of Supervisors, 18 Cal.

Woodcock v. Fontana Scaffolding & Equipment Co.

69 Cal. 2d 452 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1968

(Witt v. Jackson, 57 Cal.2d 57, 73 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 366 P.2d 641 ]; see Smith v. Trapp, *456 249 Cal.App.2d 929 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]; Souza v. Pratico, supra, 245 Cal.App.2d 651 ; Harness v. … Birdwell, 44 Cal.2d 839, 851 [ 285 P.2d 919 ]; Brown v. Regan, 10 Cal.2d 519, 523-524 [ 75 P.2d 1063 ]; Fransen v. Washington, 229 Cal.App.2d 570, 574 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 458 ]; County of Humboldt v.

People v. United National Life Insurance

66 Cal. 2d 577 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1967

Finally we return to State Board of Insurance v. Todd Shipyards Corp., supra, 370 U.S. 451 . … This trilogy of cases merely tells us that where there are no activities within the regulating state (Allgeyer v. Louisiana, supra, 165 U.S. 578 ; cf. State Board of Insurance, v.

Green v. Hayes

70 Cal. 276 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1886

(Quinby v. Gonlan, 104 U. … S. 372 ; Semple v. Hagar, 27 Cal. 163 ; Kent v. Snyder, 30 Cal. 666 .)

People v. Martinez

47 Cal. 4th 399 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 2009

(Uttecht v. Brown, supra, 551 U.S. at p. 9 .) … (Uttecht v. Brown, supra, 551 U.S. at pp. 7-9.)

Parks v. MBNA America Bank

54 Cal. 4th 376 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2012

In Perdue v. … (See McClellan v.

O'DONNELL v. Mullaney

66 Cal. 2d 994 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1967

In Boyd v. … Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Cal.2d 228, 233 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 368 P.2d 101 ].) The judgment is reversed. Traynor, C.

Dover v. Pittsburg Oil Co.

143 Cal. 501 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1904

(Graves v. Mono etc. Mining Co., 81 Cal. 325 ; Spreckels v. Nevada Bank, 113 Cal. 278 . 1 ) In Woodsurn v. … To the same effect see Carpy v. Dowdell, 115 Cal. 687 , where many authorities are cited in support of this doctrine ; and in Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U.

People v. Superior Court (Hartway)

19 Cal. 3d 338 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1977

Soler, Amitai Schwartz Treuhaft, Walker, Brown & Cooper, Treuhaft & Walker, Mark I. Soler and Mary C. Dunlap as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest. OPINION CLARK, J. … It will be upheld if its terms may be made reasonably certain by reference to other definable sources." ( American Civil Liberties Union v. Board of Education (1963) 59 Cal.2d 203, 218 [ 28 Cal.

Love v. Sierra Nevada Lake Water & Mining Co.

32 Cal. 639 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

We held in Boclley v. … Bates and Atchinson were a majority of the Board of Trustees through which the corporate powers were to be executed.