Case law

Alameda County Social Services Agency v. Kimberly H.

28 Cal. 4th 56 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2002

(Michelle W. v. Ronald W., supra, at p. 363 [alleged biological father’s abstract interest in establishing paternity not as weighty as the state’s interest in familial stability and the welfare of the child]; Comino v. … Brown, J., did not participate therein. All further statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise specified.

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.

Leverone v. Weakley

155 Cal. 395 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1909

(People v. McCue, 150 Cal. 195, 197 , [ 88 Pac. 899 ]. See, also, Bequette v. Patterson, 104 Cal. 282, 285 , [ 37 Pac. 917 ].) While it was inci *398 dentally said in Schwerdtle v. … The rule applicable was declared in Schwerdtle v.

Long Beach City School District v. Dodge

135 Cal. 401 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1902

In Patent Brick Co. v. … That the demurrer was properly overruled, see Wise v. Hogan, 77 Cal. 184 ; Pleasant v. Samuels, 114 Cal. 34 ; McFarland v.

Floyd v. Blanding

54 Cal. 41 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1879

The defendants, composing the Board of State Harbor Commissioners, in pursuance of subsequent acts of the Legislature, are about to construct a sea-wall in front of plaintiffs’ lots, which will increase considerably the distance … The case of the State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop, 16 How. 369 , involved a similar principle. In McGee v.

People v. Mooc

114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 482 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 2002

In Pitchess v. … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., Brown, J., and Lillie, J., * concurred.

Martin v. Martin

2 Cal. 3d 752 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1970

(Matthies v. Railroad Retirement Board (8th Cir. 1965) 341 F.2d 243, 248 ; Schwartz v. Pattiz (E.D. … (Matthies v. Railroad Retirement Board, supra, 341 F.2d 243, 248 .)

Turner v. Wilson

171 Cal. 600 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1915

At the canvass of the votes by the board of supervisors the return made was that each candidate had received one hundred and sixty-eight (168) votes, and that neither of them was elected. … We so intimated in withholding our approval of a portion of the opinion of the district court of appeal in Gray v. O’Banion, 23 Cal. App. 468, 479 , [ 138 Pac. 977, 981 ], citing this very provision of our law.

O.G. v. Super. Ct.

California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 2021

(Coleman v. Schwarzenegger (E.D.Cal. 2009) 922 F.Supp.2d 882, 962; see also Brown v. Plata (2011) 563 U.S. 493, 501–503.) … (Coleman v. Brown (E.D.Cal.2013) 922 F.Supp.2d 1004, 1043 (Coleman II).)

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.

Lee v. Murphy

119 Cal. 364 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1897

In Mott v. … To like effect are Brown v. Moore, 38 Tex. 645 ; Groesbeck v. Seeley, 13 Mich. 329 ; Stevens v. Hampton, 46 Mo. 404 ; Wasson v. Connor, 54 Miss. 351 ; Davis v. Beazley, 75 Va. 491 ; Bowden v. Parrish, 86 Va. 67 ; 19 Am.

Clark v. Lesher

46 Cal. 2d 874 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1956

(See Garrison v. Brown & Sons, 25 Cal.2d 473, 476 [ 154 P.2d 377 ]; 3 Witkin, California Procedure, p. 1593.) … (See Schrader v.

Campbell-Kawannanakoa v. Campbell

152 Cal. 201 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1907

He left a will by which he devised one third of his personal property to his widow, and assumed to devise all the rest of his property to his wife-and defendants Carter and Brown, as trustees. … (See Bergin v. Haight, 99 Cal. 52 , [ 33 Pac. 760 ]; Tillman v. Thomas, 87 Ala. 524 , [ 13 Am. St. Rep. 42 , 6 South. 151 ]; Fisher v. Wood, 65 Tex. 199 ; McCampbell v. Burst, 73 Tex. 410 , [ 11 S. W. 380 ]; Lawson v.

San Francisco Unified School District v. Superior Court

55 Cal. 2d 451 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1961

As explained in City é County of San Francisco v. … Holm v. Superior Court (1954), 42 Cal.2d 500, 507-508 [17] [ 267 P.2d 1025 , 268 P.2d 722 ]; Coldwell v. Board of Public Works (1921), 187 Cal. 510, 522 [ 202 P.2d 879 ].)

Cunningham v. Simpson

1 Cal. 3d 301 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1969

McMann v. … Luke v. Mercantile Accept.

Eilke v. Rice

45 Cal. 2d 66 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1955

(Minifie v. Rowley, supra, 187 Cal. 481 ; Concannon v. Smith, supra, 134 Cal. 14 ; Tuggle v. Minor, supra, 76 Cal. 96 ; Biddel v. Brizzolara, supra, 56 Cal. 374 ; Pena v. Vance, supra, 21 Cal. 142 ; Barron v. … Prosser, 122 Cal. 413 [ 52 P. 836 , 55 P. 145 ] ; McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 180 [95 Am.Dec. 170].) The importance of the distinction between new and continuing contracts is seen in Southern Pac. 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

Rumford v. City of Berkeley

31 Cal. 3d 545 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1982

Code, § 5101; Irwin v. City of Manhattan Beach, supra, 65 Cal.2d 13, 22 ; City of Walnut Creek v. … Code, § 11342 et seq.) see Armistead v.

People v. Coefield

37 Cal. 2d 865 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1951

Brown, Attorney General, Clarence A. Linn, Deputy Attorney General, J. F. Coakley, District Attorney, Folger Emerson, Assistant District Attorney, Vernon L. Gooden, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent. GIBSON, C.J. … (People v. Perry, 195 Cal. 623, 638 [ 234 P. 890 ]; People v.

Miles v. Thorne

38 Cal. 335 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

That the road was completed and a toll-gate *337 erected in the latter part of the year 1862, and the rates of toll established by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, in accordance with the conditions of the … persons entrusted with the high functions of legislation, by secret combinations, or to create or bring into operation undue influences of any kind, have all the injurious effects of a direct fraud on the public” (Marshall v.