Case law

Robey v. Superior Court

56 Cal. 4th 1218 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2013

But the marijuana in Marshall was not in plain sight; it was concealed inside a brown paper bag. (Id. at pp. 56-57.) … The court further explained: “In the present case the brown paper bag itself was not contraband.

Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key

California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2023

Santa Monica Community College Dist. (2015) 243 Cal.Ap.4th 538, 543–545; Eternity Investments, Inc. v. Brown (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 739, 742, 745; Lovret v. … (See, e.g., Eternity Investments, at p. 746 [“[T]he Browns did not serve or file a petition or response to correct or vacate the award before the 100-day period expired. . . .

Guzzetta v. State Bar

43 Cal. 3d 962 · California Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1987

In Greenbaum v. … (Smith v. State Bar (1985) 38 Cal.3d 525, 539 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 698 P.2d 139 ]; Ballard v. State Bar (1983) 35 Cal.3d 274, 291 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 556 , 673 P.2d 226 ]; Dixon v.

Klopstock v. Superior Court

17 Cal. 2d 13 · California Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1941

(Hawes v. Oakland, 104 *17 U. S. 450 [ 26 L. Ed. 827 ]; Difani v. Riverside County Oil Co., 201 Cal. 210 [ 256 Pac. 210 ]; Whitten v. … (Brown v. Critchell, 110 Ind. 31, 34 [ 7 N. E. 888 , 11 N. E. 486 ]; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Brantley’s Admr., 96 Ky. 297, 302 [ 28 S. W. 477 , 49 Am. St. Rep. 291 ]; Poe v.

In re La Société Francaise d'Epargnes Et De Prevoyance Mutuelle

123 Cal. 525 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1899

(Citing Pacific Bank v. De Ro, 37 Cal. 538 , and Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146 .) … In Wayman v.

Texas Co. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

5 Cal. 2d 35 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1935

(In Pryor v. … The supreme court of Oregon reached the same conclusion as to the effect of a similar curative statute in Browne v.

Beeler v. American Trust Co.

24 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1944

(Goodfellow v. Goodfellow, supra; Wehle v. Price, supra; Woods v. Jensen, supra.) … Brown, for support for his contention.

Johnson v. Ford Motor Co.

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 401 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2005

In the companion case of Simon v. San Paolo U.S. … Brown, J., concurred.

Hicks v. Michael

15 Cal. 107 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

(Const. art. 6, sec. 4; 2 Moorhead & Brown’s Dig. (Ky.) 812; Id. vol. 1, pp. 61, 62.) II. The Court below erred in excluding testimony in support of the complaint. (Pr. Act, sec. 118; Krom v. Hagan, 4 How. Pr. … (Kane v. *113 Whittick, 8 Wend. 229 ; Calder v. Knickerbocker, 2 Cow. 31 ; Campbell v. Stokes, 2 Wend. 145 ; Houghton v. Starr, 4 Id. 175 ; Graham on Jurisdiction, 606.)

Cashman v. Root

12 L.R.A. 511 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1891

(Ruchizky v. De Haven, 97 Pa. St. 202; North v. Phillips, 89 Pa. St. 250; Dickson v. Thomas, 97 Pa. St. 278; Gheen v. Johnson, 90 Pa. St. 38.) In Ingraham v. … (Irwin v. Williar, 110 U. S. 510 .)

Dept. Nat. Resources v. Indus. Acc. Com.

208 Cal. 14 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1929

apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, including aliens, and also including minors, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, and all elected and appointed paid public officers, and all officers and members of boards … In the case of County of Monterey v. *Page 18 Industrial Acc. Com., 199 Cal. 221 [ 47 A.L.R. 359 , 248 P. 912 ], a deputy sheriff named N.H.

Cooper v. Swoap

11 Cal. 3d 856 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1974

Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. … (Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Reimel (1968) 69 Cal.2d 172, 179 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 407 , 444 P.2d 79 ]; Pitts v. Perluss (1962) 58 Cal.2d 824, 832 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 19 , 377 P.2d 83 ].)

Buckley v. Roche

214 Cal. 241 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1931

Eastman Co. v. Industrial Acc. … In Knock v. Industrial Ace.

City of Gilroy v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2026

Williams v. … Assn. v.

Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central

74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 570 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 2008

The Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (Gov. … (See Stekloff v. St. John’s Mercy Health Systems (8th Cir. 2000) 218 F.3d 858 .)

Stanley v. Green

12 Cal. 148 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1859

See, also, Jackson v. Berringer, 25 Johns. 471 ; Howe et al. v. Bass, 2 Mass. 380 ; Powell v. Clark, 5 Mass. 355 ; Smith v. Hodge, 2 N. H. 303 ; Large v. Penn, 6 Seargt. & Raw. 488; Belden v. … Seymour, 8 Conn. 19 ; Benedict v. Gayland, 11 Conn. 332 ; Brown v. Parish, 2 Dana, 6 .

Murphy v. Allstate Insurance

17 Cal. 3d 937 · California Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1976

court has observed that “[i]n every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that neither party will do anything which injures the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement” (Brown … v.

Hoyt v. Zumwalt

149 Cal. 381 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1906

The affidavit of the judge shows that the trial referred to was had in 1887, sixteen years before the trial of this cause; that he attended the trial of the defendant, his father, and one Brown, jointly charged with the crime … The amendment constituting subdivision 4 of section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was considered and construed in People v. Compton, 123 Cal. 412 , [ 56 Pac. 44 ], and in Talbot v.

Eleazer v. Superior Court

1 Cal. 3d 847 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1970

The language of People v. … Brown (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 663, 671 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 623 ]; Harney and Cross, The Informer in Law Enforcement (2d ed. 1968) p. 73. Compare Barber v.

McColgan v. Bank of California Assn.

208 Cal. 329 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1929

Reference may be had to such eases as Hicks v. Post, 154 Cal. 22 [ 96 Pac. 878 ]; Miller v. Lerdo Land Co., 186 Cal. 1 [ 198 Pac. 778 ]; Boehm v. Spreckels, supra; Todd v. Superior Court, 181 Cal. 406 [7 A. L. … Co. v. California Dev. Co., 171 Cal. 173 , at pages 200-202 [ 152 Pac. 542 ]; Nau v. Santa Ana Sugar Co., 79 Cal. App. 685 [ 250 Pac. 705 ], See, also, Walker v. Brown, 165 U. S. 654, 664 [ 41 L. Ed. 865 , 17 Sup. Ct.