Case law

Mervyn Investment Co. v. Biber

184 Cal. 637 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1921

The corporation did, through its board of directors, assume to exercise this power and for a time operated the business conjointly with Biber. … (Braun v. Woollacott, 129 Cal. 107 , [ 61 Pac. 801 ]; Davis v. Megroz, 35 N. J.

Gish v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

13 Cal. 2d 570 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1939

manner as to cause her severe and grievous physical and mental suffering. ’ ’ On the trial of the action, concerning the manner in which the accident occurred, in substance, the said plaintiff testified that after she had “boarded … (Newson v. Hawley, 205 Cal. 188 [ 270 Pac. 364 ].) ” To the same effect, see McCurrie v.

Salcido v. Roberts

6 Cal. Unrep. 856 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1902

Upon the canvass of the returns, the board of supervisors certified that appellant had received 252, and respondent 250, votes, and officially declared appellant to have been elected. … Every positive requirement of the statute which, if disobeyed, would defeat its object, must be held mandatory: Tebbe v. Smith, supra; Lauer v. Estes, 120 Cal. 653 , 53 Pac. 262 .

People v. Linder

5 Cal. 3d 342 · California Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1971

Defendant, standing on the running board of the truck, rolled the vehicle backwards until it disappeared from the witness’ sight. … We pause to note that with very few exceptions (e.g., People v. McFarlane (1903) 138 Cal. 481 [ 71 P. 568 , 72 P. 48 ]; People v.

Herman v. Hecht

116 Cal. 553 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1897

In Hamilton v. … (See Giselman v. Starr, 106 Cal. 651, 657 .)

People v. Miles

9 Cal. 5th 513 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 2020

The physical description provided by his California Driver’s License is 6’6”, 210#, Black hair and brown eyes.” “Mr. … I believe it’s brown hair. Brown eyes. And skin was medium”; the Yenerall police report described the suspect as “Male black. 30’s. 6 feet.

Coast Bank v. Minderhout

61 Cal. 2d 311 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1964

Co. v. Gary, 181 Cal. 680, 682 [ 186 P. 596 , 9 A.L.R. 115 ]; Bonnell v. McLaughlin, 173 Cal. 213, 216 [ 159 P. 590 ]; Murray v. Green, supra, 64 Cal. 363, 368 ; Title Guar. & Trust Co. v. … (Sloman v. Cutler, 258 Mich. 372, 376 [ 242 N.W. 735 ]; see Goddard, Non-Assignment Provisions in Land Contracts, 31 Mich.L.Rev. 1; In re Congested Dists. Board (1919) 1 Irish R. 146, 150; cf. Rest., Property, § 416.)

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.

People v. Collins

195 Cal. 325 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1925

Plyler, 121 Cal. 160 [ 53 P. 553 ]; People v. Diaz, 6 Cal. 248 ; People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; People v. Lee, 2 Cal. Unrep. 569 [ 8 P. 685 ]; Graham v. State, 50 Ark. 161 , 167 [ 6 S.W. 721 ]; Newton v. … This court, citing People v. McCrory, supra, People v. Dodge, 28 Cal. 445 , and People v. Brown, 46 Cal. 103 , held that the delay was not unreasonable. The other cases cited by appellant are not in point here.

Stoetzl v. Dept. of Human Resources

248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 891 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 2019

(See also Brown v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 971, 998 [appropriations bills satisfy legislative approval required by § 3517.8, subd. … (See Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 401, 415.) 40  STOETZL v.

Watson v. Commonwealth Insurance of New York

8 Cal. 2d 61 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1936

The third document is a resolution passed by the board of directors of Watson & Taylor on April 7, 1931, that “all notes, stocks and securities in any way belonging to or standing in the name of Watson & Taylor, a corporation … (Minifie v. Rowley, 187 Cal. 481 [ 202 Pac. 673 ]; Wenban Estate, Inc., v. Hewlett, 193 Cal. 675 [ 227 Pac. 723 ].) It follows, therefore, that the judgment should be and it is hereby affirmed.

Asbury Rapid Transit System v. Railroad Commission

18 Cal. 2d 105 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1941

Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 16 Cal. (2d) 779 [ 108 Pac. (2d) 430 ], and Bay Cities Transit Co. v. … Corp. v.

People v. Modesto

62 Cal. 2d 436 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1965

A partial list of these cases follows: People v. McGungill, 41 Cal. 429, 431 ; People v. Brown, 53 Cal. 66, 67 ; People v. Sanders, 114 Cal. 216 [ 46 P. 153 ] (citing McGungill, rather than Tyler) ; People v. … Brown, 81 Cal.App. 226, 242 [ 253 P. 735 ].

Ex Parte Sohncke

148 Cal. 262 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1905

(McAllister v. Hamlin, 83 Cal. 361 , [ 23 Pac. 357 ]; Orange County v. Harris, 97 Cal. 602 , [32 Pac. 594]; Los Angeles v. Hance, 122 Cal. 77 , [ 54 Pac. 387 ].) … (Pasadena v. Stinson, 91 Cal. 251 , [ 27 Pac. 604 ]; Darcy v. Mayor, 104 Cal. 645 , [ 38 Pac. 500 ]; Bruch v. Colombet, 104 Cal. 351 , [ 38 Pac. 45 ]; Rauer v. Williams, 118 Cal. 401 , [ 50 Pac. 691]; Budd v.

In Re Martinez

131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2003

Opinion BROWN, J. The Penal Code provides that inmates in county jails and state prisons may have their sentences reduced as a reward for their conduct, including work and good behavior. … In People v.

People v. Fleming

166 Cal. 357 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1913

(See People v. Mohr, 157 Cal. 734 , [ 109 P. 476 ].) … (People v. Arlington, 123 Cal. 357 , [ 55 P. 1003 ].)

Union of Med. Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego

250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 818 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 2019

In determining that intended purpose, we follow "[s]ettled principles." ( *1184 Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 593 , 609, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 387 , 304 P.3d 1052 ( Elk Hills ).) … (See Save Tara v.

People v. Moore

51 Cal. 4th 1104 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2011

(People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 562-563; People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 1004-1005; People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 111-112; People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1249.) … (See Brown, supra, at pp. 562-563; Dyer, supra, at pp. 69-71.)

Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court

1 Cal. 4th 617 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1992

For example, in Brown v. Nebiker (1941) 229 Iowa 1223 [ 296 N.W. 366 ], the Iowa Supreme Court held that the plaintiff could not recover for injuries caused by a sliver of bone in a pork chop. … For example, Brown v.

Burtnett v. King

33 Cal. 2d 805 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 1949

App.2d 491 [ 122 P.2d 64 ]; Flores v. Smith, 47 Cal.App.2d 253 [ 117 P.2d 712 ]; Von Der Kuhlen v. Hegel, 51 Cal.App. 416 [ 196 P. 913 ]; Williams v. Reed, 43 Cal.App. 425 [ 185 P.2d 515 ]; Brown v. … In English v.