Case law

Wood v. Etiwanda Water Co.

122 Cal. 152 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1898

(Schurtz v. Romer, supra; Painter v. Painter, supra.) … In McGuire v. Brown, 106 Cal. 660, 672 , the plaintiff had a prior right to the water of a certain stream, and to convey it in a ditch across defendant’s land.

Klein v. Milne

198 Cal. 71 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1926

The witness for the plaintiff, May, testified to the details of the injury to the ear, the smashed fenders, the injured running-board, radiator, and wheels. … Franklin, 140 Cal. 609 [ 74 Pac. 155 ]; Frascona v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp., 48 Cal. App. 135 [ 191 Pac. 968 ])..

Fontana v. Pacific Can Co.

129 Cal. 51 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1900

Plaintiffs cite in support of the ruling Pixley v. Western etc. R. R. Co., 33 Cal. 183 1 ; and Crowley v. Genesee etc. Co., 55 Cal. 273 . … (Barney v. Pforr, 117 Cal. 56 ; Pauly v. Pauly, 107 Cal. 8 2 ; Blood v. La Serena Land etc. Co., 113 Cal. 221 .)

California Trust Co. v. Bennett

33 Cal. 2d 694 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1949

(Wheeland v. … (See Uhl v. Badaracco, 199 Cal. 270, 282 [ 248 P. 917 ]; Driscoll v. East-West Dairymen’s Assn., 52 Cal.App.2d 468, 472 [ 126 P.2d 647 ]; Goodman v. Board of Education, 48 Cal.

Ex parte Haskell

112 Cal. 412 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1896

In Warren Borough v. Geer, 117 Pa. … Louis v. Wehrung, 46 Ill. 394 ; St. Louis v. Sternberg, 69 Mo. 301 ; Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 679 .) There is nothing in Ex parte Frank, 52 Cal. 606 , 28 Am. Rep. 642 , necessarily opposed to this view.

Story v. Richardson

186 Cal. 162 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1921

(San Francisco v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 166 Cal. 244, 247 , [ 135 Pac. 971 ]; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. … Co. v. Eshleman, 167 Cal. 666, 680 , [ 140 Pac. 591, 596 ].)

Burum v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

30 Cal. 2d 575 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1947

Van & Storage Co. v. … (Anderson v. Eaton, 211 Cal. 113, 117 [ 293 P. 788 ]. Cf. Lessing v. Gibbons, 6 Cal.App.2d 598 at 604 [ 45 P.2d 258 ].) In Anderson v.

Mondine v. Sarlin

11 Cal. 2d 593 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1938

Mondine then stepped on the running board of his truck in a position where he could see the amount of gasoline flowing into it. … (Hoff v. Los Angeles Pac.

Marshall v. Taylor

98 Cal. 55 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1893

(Furman v. Applegate, 23 N. J. L. 28; Kennedy v. Shea, 110 Mass. 147 ; White v. Murtland, 71 Ill. 250 .) … (State v, Bierce, 27 Conn. 319 ; Croghan v. State, 22 Wis. 444 ; Brown v. Kingsley, 38 Iowa, 222 .) Modern lexicographers define seduction as the act of persuading a woman to surrender her chastity.

Ephraim v. Pacific Bank

129 Cal. 589 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1900

In Tome v. … (Hutchinson v. Hampton, 1 Mont. 39 .) In Cutter v. Pollock, 7 N.

People v. Neal

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 650 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2003

(See, e.g., Brown v. Mississippi (1936) 297 U.S. 278, 285-286 [ 80 L.Ed. 682 , 56 S.Ct. 461 ].) In Miranda v. … Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Brown, J., Moreno, J., concurred. In Chavez v.

Chase v. Superior Court

154 Cal. 789 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1908

“In Hatch v. … “In Brown v.

California State Automobile Ass'n. Inter-Insurance Bureau v. Superior Court

50 Cal. 3d 658 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1990

(McCreery v. Fuller (1883) 63 Cal. 30, 31-32 ; see also Moore v. Schneider (1925) 196 Cal. 380, 389 [ 238 P. 81 ]; Partridge v. Shepard (1886) 71 Cal. 470, 475 [ 12 P. 480 ]; Wittman v. … Co. v. Johansen (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 824, 833 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 174 ]; Guaranty L. Corp. v. Board of Supers. (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d 684, 686 [ 71 P.2d 931 ]; 7 Witkin, Cal.

Goldin v. Public Utilities Commission

23 Cal. 3d 638 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1979

State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal.3d 214, 220-233 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 461 P.2d 375 ]; Hall v. Bureau of Employment Agencies (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 482, 490-495 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 725 ]; Goldberg v. … (Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners (1973) 9 Cal.3d 356, 364 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 473 , 508 P.2d 1121 , 61 A.L.R.3d 342 ]; see also Redner v. Workmen’s Comp.

People v. Prettyman

14 Cal. 4th 248 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1996

She then saw two Hispanic men and one White male with long scraggly light-brown hair run down the alley next to the church. The defense also presented expert testimony. … Justice Brown’s concurrence and dissent asserts that our “new instructional requirements” will “vex trial judges and perplex juries.” (Cone, and dis. opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 292.)

Nulty v. Price

202 Cal. 279 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1927

(See Womack v. Walling, 1 Baxt. (60 Tenn.) 425; 8 C. J. 132.) We think the obligation was one to pay $2,000 in money. … now deceased, wherein it was alleged that since the submission of the cause the defendant had discovered that three checks, two in the sum of $4.70 and the third in the sum of $267.70, had been made in his favor by the board

Newton v. Johnston Organ & Piano Manufacturing Co.

180 Cal. 185 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1919

(Dore v. Southern Pacific Co., 163 Cal. 182 , [ 124 Pac. 817 ]; Stevens v. Selma Fruit Co., Inc., 18 Cal. App. 242 , [ 123 Pac. 212 ]; Aigeltinger v. … (Seymour v.

People v. Chandler

60 Cal. 4th 508 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2014

Thus, for example, video games in which “ ‘[v]ictims are dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire, and chopped into little pieces’ ” retain First Amendment protection. (Brown v. … V. v. St.

Neary v. Regents of University of California

3 Cal. 4th 273 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1992

Inc. v. Chester’s Market Inc., supra, 756 F.2d at p. 282 , citing New Left Ed. Proj. v. Board of Reg. of the U. of Tex. Sys. (5th Cir. 1973) 472 F.2d 218 , vacated 414 U.S. 807 [ 38 L.Ed.2d 43 , 94 S.Ct. 118 ].) … (Fenske v. Board of Administration (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 590, 596 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 182 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 763, p. 730.)

Ex Parte King

157 Cal. 161 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1910

As was said in Grumbach v. … The case of Van Harlingen v.