Case law

Estate of Easter

24 Cal. 2d 191 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1944

(Goad v. Montgomery, 119 Cal. 552 [ 51 P. 681 , 63 Am.St.Rep. 145 ].)" (Keating v. Smith, 154 Cal. 186, 191 [ 97 P. 300 ].) In Luscomb v. … (See Brown, Problems of Construction Arising In The Law of Property--Particularly In The Law of Future Interests, 79 Pa.L.Rev. 385, 389.)

Starkweather v. Eddy

210 Cal. 483 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1930

This appointment the plaintiff contended was not valid for the reason that the board of directors making the appointment had not been validly elected. … (Lee v. Levison, 173 Cal. 166, 168 [ 159 Pac. 438 ]; Runo v. Williams, 162 Cal. 444, 450 [ 122 Pac. 1082 ]; Pickering v. Havens, 70 Cal. App. 381 [ 233 Pac. 346 ]; Franklin v. Irvine, 52 Cal.

Gray v. La Societe Francaise De Bienfaisance Mutuelle

131 Cal. 566 · California Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1901

Griffith Co. v. Los Angeles (Cal., Sept. 3, 1898), 54 Pac. … (Holmes v. Richet, 56 Cal. 307 1 ; Scammon v. Denio, 72 Cal. 393.) We do not think it can he said in view of the pleadings that there was no issue as to the value of the extras.

People v. Stowell

31 Cal. 4th 1107 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2003

Opinion BROWN, J. … People v.

Warner Bros. Co. v. Freud

131 Cal. 639 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1901

In Erwin v. … The board levied the tax pursuant to the judgment, and afterward appealed from the judgment which they had executed.

County of San Bernardino v. City of San Bernardino

15 Cal. 4th 909 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1997

According to the joint powers agency agreement, the Board of Supervisors of the County was to be the governing board of ICEMA. … Because ICEMA’s governing board is also the County’s board of supervisors, we will also refer the actions of ICEMA’s as simply the County’s.

Bolar v. Maxwell Hardware Co.

205 Cal. 396 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1928

The projectiles tore a hole through the “target,” a large sign-board, but the contrivance exploded and as a result of either the recoil or the bursting of it, plaintiff was thrown to the ground and his right knee-cap was … W. 776 ; Thornton v. Ionia Fair Assn., 229 Mich. 1 [ 200 N. W. 958 ]; Shields v. Costello (Mo. App.), 229 S. W. 411 ; Holmes v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 128 App. Div. 24 [ 112 N. Y.

Marquette v. State Bar

44 Cal. 3d 253 · California Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1988

On April 7, 1978, the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar publicly reproved petitioner for his professional misconduct. C. … (Maltaman v.

Noyes v. Chambers & DeGolyer

202 Cal. 542 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1927

(Chase v. Trout, supra; Watkinson v. Vaughn, supra.) … The case of Jennings v.

Lezine v. Security Pacific Financial Services Inc.

14 Cal. 4th 56 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1996

In Droeger v. … In Droeger v.

Oro Elec. Corp. v. R.R. Comm'n of Cal.

169 Cal. 466 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1915

In both Von Schmidt v. Widber and Hyatt v. … The act does not authorize any board or council to grant a franchise.

Morillion v. Royal Packing Co.

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 3 · California Supreme Court · May 10, 2000

State Personnel Board (1978) 22 Cal.3d 198, 204 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 583 P.2d 744 .) … GEORGE, C.J., MOSK, KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, and BROWN, JJ., concur.

Davenport v. City of Los Angeles

146 Cal. 508 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1905

If the certificate was sufficient on its face, the jurisdiction of the board cannot be assailed. If the *516 record shows jurisdiction, it cannot be impeached by allegation or proof aliunde. … (People v. Worswick, 142 Cal. 71 .)

Northwestern Mutual Fire Ass'n v. Pacific Wharf & Storage Co.

187 Cal. 38 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1921

(Klopper v. Levy, 98 Cal. 525 , [ 33 Pac. 444 ] ; King v. Davis, 34 Cal. 100 ; Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 628, 632 , [ 59 Pac. 122 ]; Rudel v. County of Los Angeles, 118 Cal. 281 , [ 50 Pac. 400 ] ; Fernandez v. … W. 977 ] ; Dieterle v.

People v. Chun

45 Cal. 4th 1172 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2009

Burroughs *1183 (1984) 35 Cal.3d 824, 836-854 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 319 , 678 P.2d 894 ], Justice Brown did so in dissent in Robertson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pages 186-192, and again while concurring and dissenting in People v. … Justice Brown argued in dissent that the second degree felony-murder rule should be abandoned entirely. ( Robertson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 186-192.)

People v. Laino

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 2004

State Election Board (1934) 1934 OK 481 [ 169 Okla. 363, 365-366 , 36 P.2d 20 ]], *892 California must defer to that definition of defendant’s status. [See Gibson v. … In McClish v.

People v. Garcia

216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2017

In response to this challenge, the Legislature in 2006 created the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) to analyze current practices and recommend improvements. (Pen. … (Brown v.

McCullough v. Commission on Judicial Performance

49 Cal. 3d 186 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1989

(Gonzalez v. … (Rule 902(b)(3); Gubler v.

Fuller v. Reed

38 Cal. 99 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

(Lexington v. Clark and wife, 2 Ventr. 223; Chater v. Bickett, 7 Tenn. Rep. 201 ; *110 Crawford v. Morrill, 8 John. 255 ; Van Alstine & Whimple, 5 Conn. 164.) … (King v. Brown, 2 Hill, 485 ; Baldwin v. Palmer, 10 N. Y. 234 .)

Burke v. Chrostowski

46 Cal. 2d 444 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1956

Code, §15038), leaving defendant in the position of “a mere trustee” (Ruppe v. Utter, 76 Cal.App. 19, 25 [ 243 P. 715 ]; also Vangel v. Vangel, 116 Cal.App.2d 615, 628 [ 254 P.2d 919 ]; Vangel v. … (Bruce v. Bruce, 71 Cal.App.2d 641, 644 [ 163 P.2d 95 ]; Maslow v. Maslow, 117 Cal.App.2d 237, 243 [ 255 P.2d 65 ]; see also Hamilton v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 12 Cal.2d 598, 602-603 [ 86 P.2d 829 ].)