Case law

Nicholson v. City of Los Angeles

5 Cal. 2d 361 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1936

In Wilkerson v. … In Rafferty v.

People v. Jones

53 Cal. 3d 1115 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1991

Two years after defendant’s trial, in People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ] (revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. … Because of this conclusion, we need not address the continuing validity of People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512 , in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blystone v.

In Re Marriage Cases

43 Cal. 4th 757 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 2008

As this court explained in Brown v. … As the United States Supreme Court explained in Board of Education v.

Watterson v. Owens River Canal Co.

190 Cal. 88 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1922

(Stein v. Leeman, 161 Cal. 505 [ 119 Pac. 663 ]; Davis v. Le Mesnager, 155 Cal. 520 [101 Pac. 910]; Glassell v. Hansen, 149 Cal. 511 [ 87 Pac. 200 ]; Falkner v. … J. 26, 27; Klamath Lumber Co. v. Bamber, 74 Or. 287 [ 142 Pac. 359 , 145 Pac. 650 ]; Brown v. Fletcher’s Estate, 146 Mich. 401 [ 123 Am. St. Rep. 233 , 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 632, 109 N. W. 686 ]; Crane v.

Spotts v. Hanley

85 Cal. 155 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1890

(Sheldon v. Mull, 67 Cal. 300 ; Howell v. Rodgers, 47 Cal. 291 .) … (Read v. Allen, 56 Tex. 176 -180.) It was also held in the case of Read v.

People v. Globe Grain & Milling Co.

211 Cal. 121 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1930

prescribed therefor (Tarpey v. … (County of San Luis Obispo v. Murphy, 162 Cal. 588 [Ann. Cas. 1913D, 712, 123 Pac. 808 ]; Chesebrough v. San Francisco, 153 Cal. 559 [ 96 Pac. 288 ]; Wheeler v.

County of Sonoma v. City of Santa Rosa

102 Cal. 426 · California Supreme Court · May 14, 1894

This is an action brought by the county of Sonoma against the city of Santa Rosa to recover three hundred and seventy-one dollars and seventy cents, alleged to have been paid by the county to the sheriff for boarding prisoners … Tweed v.

Thomason v. Ruggles

69 Cal. 465 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1886

In Staude v. … It was so held by a majority of this court in the recent case entitled People v. Strother, 67 Cal. 624 . For the reasons here given, I concur in the judgment.

International Industries, Inc. v. Olen

21 Cal. 3d 218 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1978

Proc., § 1021; D'Amico v. *222 Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 24-27 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ]; Freeman v. Goldberg (1961) 55 Cal.2d 622, 625 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 668 , 361 P.2d 244 ]; Young v. … In Genis v.

Eads v. Marks

39 Cal. 2d 807 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1952

(Green v. Hanson, 103 Cal.App. 430 [284 *811 P. 1082]; Jones v. Kelly, 208 Cal. 251 [ 280 P. 942 ] ; Wetzel v. Pius, 78 Cal.App. 104 [ 248 P. 288 ].) … Board of Fire Underwriters, 29 Cal.2d 34, 41 [ 172 P.2d 867 ]), it is our opinion that the agreement between plaintiffs and defendant created a duty of care on the part of defendant toward plaintiffs’ minor child, that plaintiffs

Warden v. S. Pasadena Realty & Improvement Co.

178 Cal. 440 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1918

(Severy v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 51 Cal. 194, 197 ; Alameda M. Co. v. Williams, 70 Cal. 540 , [ 12 Pac. 530 ].) The importance of this will be seen presently. … (Code Civ, Proc., sec. 380; Kitts v. Austin, 83 Cal. 172 , [ 23 Pac. 290 ]; Landregan v. Peppin, 94 Cal. 468 , [ 29 Pac. 771 ].)

Stockton School District v. Wright

134 Cal. 64 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1901

If, in any district, there has been an average daily attendance of only five, or less, during the whole school year, the superintendent shall suspend the district and report such fact to the board of supervisors. (Pol. … (People v. Craycroft, 111 Cal. 544 .) We advise that the judgment be reversed and the court be- . low directed to dismiss the proceedings. Haynes, C., and Gray, C., concurred.

Swamp Land Reclamation Dist. No. 341 v. Blumenberg

156 Cal. 539 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1909

This section was considered by this court in Reclamation District v. Runyon, 117 Cal. 164 , [ 49 Pac. 131 ]. … (Reclamation District v. Evans, 61 Cal. 104 ; Lower Kings River Reclamation District v. Phillips, 108 Cal. 306 , [ 39 Pac. 630 , 41 Pac. 335 ]; Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U. S. 701 , [4 Sup. Ct. 663].)

People v. Pokovich

48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 2006

(See United States v. Ortega (9th Cir. 2000) 203 F.3d 675 [statements may be used to impeach]; United States v. Brown (2d Cir. 1983) 699 F.2d 585 [statements may not be used to impeach]; People v. … Brown (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 461 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 652 ] [statements may be used to impeach]; People v. Harper (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 843 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 204 ] [statements may not be used to impeach].)

People v. Soeder

150 Cal. 12 · California Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1906

(See People v. Cook, 148 Cal. 334 , [83 Pac. 43, 46, 50]; People v. Suesser, 142 Cal. 354, 363 , [ 75 Pac. 1093 ].) In People v. … Brown, 130 Cal. 591, 594 , [ 62 Pac. 1072 ], this court, quoting approvingly from People v. Stout, 4 Park. C. C. (N.

Simoneau v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.

159 Cal. 494 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1911

Our own court in Board of Railroad Comm’rs v. Market St. Ry., 132 Cal. 183 , [ 64 Pac. 1067 ], quoting with approval the case of Bloxham v. Consumers? etc. Co., 36 Fla. 539 , [ 51 Am. St. Rep. 44 , 18 South, 444 , 29 L. … The decisions above cited, and particularly that of this court in Board of R. R. Comm’rs v. Market St. Ry.

People v. Rodriguez

122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 348 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 2002

(People v. Bland (2002) 28 Cal.4th 313, 334 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 546 , 48 P.3d 1107 ]; People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 981 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ]; People v. … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., concurred. Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In Re Allen

71 Cal. 2d 388 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1969

In Gideon v. … United States v. robel, 389 U.S. 258 , . . . Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488-489 . . . .

Barrett v. Market Street Railway Co.

81 Cal. 296 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1889

The case upon which the appellant relies — Fulton v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 17 U. C. Q. B. 428—is not quite in point. … In that case the plaintiff had boarded a train of cars without a ticket, and when asked for his fare de *301 dined paying it, as he said he had not made up his mind how far he should go.

People v. Reid

193 Cal. 491 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1924

Code, sec. 189; People v. Manriques, 188 Cal. 602 [20 A. L. R. 1441, 206 Pac. 63 ]; People v. Denman, 179 Cal. 497 [ 177 Pac. 461 ]; People v. Hadley, 175 Cal. 118 [ 165 Pac. 442 ]; People v. … (People v. Olsen, 80 Cal. 122 [ 22 Pac. 125 ]; People v. Doyell, 48 Cal. 85, 94 .)