Case law

Edmondson v. State Bar

29 Cal. 3d 339 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1981

(Lubin v. Lubin (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 781, 795 [ 302 P.2d 49 ].) … Moreover, this court is not bound by the recommendations of either the hearing panel or the review board. (Sturr v. State Bar (1959) 52 Cal.2d 125, 127 [ 338 P.2d 897 ].)

Smellie v. Southern Pacific Co.

212 Cal. 540 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1931

v. … In Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co.,'supra, and in Koster v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co., supra, no reference is made to section 2055.

Fox v. Western Pac. R.R.

31 Cal. 538 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

It was an action against the county for the value of certain land over which a road had been opened by the Board- of Supervisors. … (Bloodgood v. Mohawk and Hudson River Railroad Company, 14 Wend. 56 ; Smith v. Helmer, 7 Barb. 416 ; Mayor and Aldermen of Pittsburg v. Scott , 1 Penn. St. R. 309; Hawkins v. Lawrence, 8 Blackf. 266; Rubalton v.

McColgan v. Magee, Inc.

172 Cal. 182 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1916

Bank v. … In Brown v. Macgill, 87 Md. 161 , [ 67 Am. St. Rep. 334 , 39 L. R.

S.F. T. Seminary v. Monterey County G. & E. Co.

179 Cal. 166 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1918

“This contract is duly authorized by a resolution of the board of directors of the Monterey County Gas and Electric Company. “Monterey County Gas and Electric Company. “By George Heazelton, “President. … (Adams v. Wallace, 119 Cal. 67 , [ 51 Pac. 14 ] ; Kinsel v. Ballou, 151 Cal. 754 , [ 91 Pac. 620 ] ; Martin v. Becker, 169 Cal. 301 , [Ann. Cas. 1916D, 171, 146 Pac. 665 ].) The judgment is affirmed.

Robinson v. Superior Court

35 Cal. 2d 379 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1950

In Sampsell v. … (See Brown v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.2d 559, 561 [ 212 P.2d 878 ]; Betty v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.2d 619, 622 [ 116 P.2d 947 ].)

In Re Marriage of Arceneaux

51 Cal. 3d 1130 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1990

(E.g., Rees v. … Our holding in Guardianship of Brown (1976) 16 Cal.3d 326 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 10 , 546 P.2d 298 ], illustrates the application of section 634 as it read during the period in question.

Pacific Gold Dredging Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

184 Cal. 462 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1920

(Self- *465 ridge v. Paxton, 145 Cal. 713 , [ 79 Pac. 425 ]; Ex parte Miller, 109 Cal. 648 , [42 Pae. 428]; McKay v. McKay, 125 Cal. 65, [ 57 Pac. 677 ]; Matter of McMullin, 164 Cal. 504 , [ 129 Pac. 773 ]; People v. … It is also held, in People v.

People v. One 1948 Chevrolet Convertible Coupe

45 Cal. 2d 613 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1955

In United States v. … Therefore so far as the record in this ease is concerned the cigarettes found in the coat and in the ear are brown paper cigarettes, no more.” (116 Cal.App.2d at 750-751.)

Seely v. White Motor Co.

63 Cal. 2d 9 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1965

(Rose v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 212 Cal.App.2d 755, 762-763 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 99 A.L.R.2d 1411 ]; Allen v. Brown, 181 Kan. 301, 308 [ 310 P.2d 923 ].) … Code, §2714), can properly include lost profits (Grupe v. Glick, 26 Cal.2d 680, 692 [ 160 P.2d 832 ] ; Mack v. Hugh W.

People v. Barton

21 Cal. 3d 513 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1978

(Douglas v. … Brown (1963) 372 U.S. 477, 484 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 892, 897 , 83 S.Ct. 768 ]), counsel must also be provided for an indigent (1) who brings a collateral attack on his conviction, once he has made “adequately detailed factual allegations

Willingham Bus Lines, Inc. v. Municipal Court

66 Cal. 2d 893 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1967

Co. v. City of San Carlos (1960) 181 Cal. … Bank v. Franchise Tax Board (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 591, 595 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 905 ].) The proposed departure from precedent seems particularly inappropriate today.

Higgins v. City of San Diego

118 Cal. 524 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1897

The case of Weaver v. … Except as otherwise authorized by this charter, the city shall not, nor shall the common council, the board of education, or any board, department, or officer incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner, or for any

See v. Joughin

18 Cal. 2d 603 · California Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1941

(Newhall v. Hatch, 134 Cal. 269 [ 66 Pac. 266 , 55 L. R. A. 673]; Terry v. Ham *607 monds, 47 Cal. 32 ; Dyment v. Board of Medical Examiners, 93 Cal. … In the case of Hardy v.

People v. Thomas

52 Cal. 4th 336 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2011

Holding a gun, defendant ordered her guests Ronald Doss and Alton Brown to empty their pockets. Doss drew his own gun and the men exchanged gunfire. Defendant was hit. … Id., at 434.‟ (Uttecht v. Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 7; see People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 779 (Wilson).)” (Bramit, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1235.)

People v. Thomas

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 642 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1999

Opinion BROWN, J. We consider in this case whether a defendant sentenced under the three strikes law (Pen. … (People v.

People v. Frierson

53 Cal. 3d 730 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1991

Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], and thus avoid the possibility of “some *750 confusion” that existed in the original standard jury instructions under the 1978 law. … (People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448-449 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].)

Hoffman v. City of Red Bluff

63 Cal. 2d 584 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1965

McKenna (1944) 23 Cal.2d 774, 781-782 [ 147 P.2d 531 ]; Southlands Co. v. City of San Diego (1931) 211 Cal. 646, 656-657 [ 297 P. 521 ]; Watkinson v. Vaughn (1920) 182 Cal. 55, 58-59 [ 186 P. 753 ]; Imperial Land Co. v. … Dist. (1916) 173 Cal. 660, 663-664 [ 161 P. 113 ] ; Capital Freight Lines v. City of Sacramento (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 279, 281-282 [23 Cal.Rptr. 752]; V. R. Dennis Construction Co. v.

Carrisales v. Department of Corrections

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 804 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1999

(E.g., Miller v. Maxwell’s Intern. Inc. (9th Cir. 1993) 991 F.2d 583, 587-588 ; see generally, Reno v. Baird, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 647-650; Page v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1215-1216.) … J., Mosk, J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., concurred. 1 All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 Section 12940(h)(1) provides in its entirety: “It

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.