Case law

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.

Kerr Glass Manufacturing Corp. v. City of San Buenaventura

7 Cal. 2d 701 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1936

McHenry, supra, and such cases as Meyer v. Porter, 65 Cal. 67 [ 2 Pac. 884 ], and Meyer v. … R. 704], opinion of Brown, J., dissenting in part.)

J. M. Howell Co. v. Corning Irrigation Co.

177 Cal. 513 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1918

(Rowe v. Blake, 99 Cal. 167 , [ 37 Am. St. Rep. 45 , 33 Pac. 864 ]; Ames v. Hoy, 12 Cal. 11 ; Stuart v. Lander, 16 Cal. 373 , [ 76 Am. Dec. 538 ].) . … (McFadden v. Board of Supervisors, 74 Cal. 571 , [ 16 Pac. 397 ]; Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co., 139 Cal. 22, 29 , [ 72 Pac. 395 ]; Barton v. Riverside Water Co., 155 Cal. 509, 518 , [23 L. R. A. (N.

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.

People v. Barnum

131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 499 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2003

As abundant authority attests, the rights subject to forfeiture as well as waiver include the privilege against compelled self-incrimination (see Brown v. … Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurred. 1 See People v. Jones (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 867, 872-874 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 ]; People 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.

Gelhaus v. Nevada Irrigation District

43 Cal. 2d 779 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1955

It was provided on the back of the application that it was made “under and subject to the By-Laws, Rules and Regulations, and rates of tolls and charges adopted or to be adopted by the Board of Directors” of defendant, and … Co. v. San Lorenzo etc. Co., 150 Cal. 51, 59 [ 87 P. 1093 , 7 L.R.A.N.S. 913 ]; Niehaus Bros. v. Contra Costa Water Co., 159 Cal. 305, 318 [ 113 P. 375 , 36 L.RA.N.S. 1045]; see San Leandro v.

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.

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.

People v. Posey

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2004

“[V]enue provisions applicable to criminal proceedings serve a variety of purposes.” (People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1095 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 25 P.3d 598 ] (Simon).) … (People v. Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 937 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 755 P.2d 917 ].)” (Ibid., italics added.)

City of Oakland v. Buteau

180 Cal. 83 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1919

(Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605 , [ 56 L. Ed. 570 , 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340]; Missouri v. Nebraska, 196 U. S. 23, 35 , [ 49 L. Ed. 372 , 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 155]; Tappendorff v. … (Strand Improvement Co. v.

People v. Belleci

24 Cal. 3d 879 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1979

(See, e.g., Younger v. Superior Court (Mack) (1978) 21 Cal.3d 102, 113-114 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 674 , 577 P.2d 1014 ]; Silver v. Brown (1966) 63 Cal.2d 841, 845 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 409 P.2d 689 ].) … (See, e.g., United States v.

Swenson v. File

3 Cal. 3d 389 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1970

Works v. Jones, 102 Cal. 506, 511 [ 36 P. 841 ], and Brown v. … Co. v.

O'Connor v. O'Connor

218 Cal. 518 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1933

Brown, 159 Ind. 106 [ 62 N. … “In Unger v.

Estate of Pillsbury

175 Cal. 454 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1917

On the contrary, we find that in cases which were of a character that they would not survive, this practice has been adopted." ( Brown v. Wheeler, 18 Conn. 199 .) In Perry v. … In Hocks v.

Ernser v. Walcott

199 Cal. 163 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1926

(See Mann v. Tracy, 185 Cal. 272, 278 [ 196 Pac. 484 ].) … Petitioners have cited Cook v.

Bayley v. Garrison

190 Cal. 690 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1923

App. 21 [ 96 Pac. 104 ], In addition to the authorities cited in that opinion in support of the view there expressed the following eases may be cited: Board of Commrs. of Muskogee County v. Hart, 29 Okl. 693 [37 L. R. … M. 291 [ 200 Pac. 421 ] ; Stone v. State, 18 Ala. App. 228 [ 89 South. 824 ]; Quernheim v. Asselmeier, 296 Ill. 494 [ 129 N. E. 828 ]; People v. Stong, 67 Colo. 599 [ 189 Pac. 27 ]; Hibbard v.