Case law

Bay Development, Ltd. v. Superior Court

50 Cal. 3d 1012 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1990

(Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 724 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ].) It is axiomatic that we turn first to the statute’s words for the answer. (Ibid.) … (Brown v. Ferdon (1936) 5 Cal.2d 226, 231 [ 54 P.2d 712 ]; County of Los Angeles v. Jessup (1938) 11 Cal.2d 273, 280-282 [ 78 P.2d 1131 ].)

Scheiding v. General Motors Corp.

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 342 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 2000

.; Mayer, Brown & Platt, Kenneth S. Geller and Donald M. Falk, Washington, Dist. of Columbia, for Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. BROWN, J. … Carrillo v.

People v. Loy

52 Cal. 4th 46 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2011

Brown (1994) 8 Cal.4th 746. The second of these arguments clearly lacks merit. Brown held that evidence of a fresh complaint can sometimes be admitted for a relevant nonhearsay purpose. (Id. at pp. 749-750.) … (People v. Brown, supra, at p. 749, fn. 1.) The only exception that may apply here is that for spontaneous statements.

People v. Campbell

129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 601 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 2002

Our obvious initial step is to examine the actual language of the statute. ( People v. Mom (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1221 , 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 172 .) … Governing Board (1994) 8 Cal.4th 333, 340 , 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 109 , 878 P.2d 1321 .) Section 490.1 was added to the Penal Code by Assembly Bill No. 1826 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.).

People v. Union Bldg. Etc. Assn.

127 Cal. 400 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1899

proceeding hazardous to the public and to those having funds in its custody," and thereupon this action was brought by the attorney general under and in pursuance of the provisions of section 9 of the act creating said board … In Havemeyer v. Superior Court, 84 Cal. 327 , 365 , 18 Am. St. Rep. 192 , Mr.

People v. Ramos

37 Cal. 3d 136 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1984

In People v. … (Farris v.

Silva v. Providence Hospital of Oakland

14 Cal. 2d 762 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1939

was a patient in the hospital and paying the amounts charged by it for the services rendered to her, she fell and fractured her hip by reason of the negligence of the hospital nurse in failing to equip her bed with a side board … (Inderbitzen v. Lane Hospital, 124 Cal. App. 462, 466 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 744 , 13 Pac. (2d) 905 ].) Judgments against the Palo Alto Hospital were affirmed in Baker v. Board of Trustees, etc., 133 Cal.

Pretzer v. California Transit Co.

211 Cal. 202 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1930

The Ford hit the stage back of its center on its right-hand side, tearing the right fenders and right running board from the sedan. … (Morris v. Standard Oil Co., 188 Cal. 468 [ 205 Pac. 1073 ]; Livesey v. Stock, 208 Cal. 315 [ 281 Pac. 70 ]; Davis v. Renton, 99 Cal.

Swoap v. Superior Court

10 Cal. 3d 490 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1973

In County of San Mateo v. … Seemingly to the contrary are Garcia v. Superior Court (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 31 . . . and Kelley v. State Board of Social Welfare (1947) 82 Cal.App. 2d 627 ....

City of Culver City v. Superior Court

38 Cal. 2d 535 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1952

Brown, Attorneys General, and Bayard Rhone, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. SCHAUER, J. … (Norris v.

Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1

221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 761 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2017

(See Quarry v. … Neither Shirk 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.

O'CONNOR v. Village Green Owners Assn.

33 Cal. 3d 790 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1983

We discussed the scope of that language in Burks v. … The association, through a board of directors, is charged with employing a professional property management firm, with obtaining insurance for the benefit of all owners and with maintaining and repairing all common areas

Magezis v. Municipal Court

3 Cal. 3d 54 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1970

(Eskridge v. Washington State Board (1958) 357 U.S. 214, 216 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 1269, 1271 , 78 S.Ct. 1061 ].) … (Draper v. Washington, supra, 372 U.S. 487, 492 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 899, 903-904 ]; Preston v. Municipal Court (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 76, 86 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 301 ]; see Gardner v.

In Re Ralph

27 Cal. 2d 866 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1946

(People v. Ralph (1944), 24 Cal.2d 575, 583 [ 150 P.2d 401 ].) … (See People v. Ralph (1944), supra, 24 Cal.2d 575, 581, 582 .)

Collins v. Vickter Manor, Inc.

47 Cal. 2d 875 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1957

Board of Fire Underwriters (1946), 29 Cal.2d 34, 39 [2] [ 172 P.2d 867 ]) as “Intentional and unjustifiable interference with contractual relations.” … (See Richards v. Farmers’ etc.

Mercury Herald Co. v. Moore

22 Cal. 2d 269 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1943

The precise problem involved in this case was recently considered by the Supreme Court of Michigan (Baker v. State Land Office Board (1940), 294 Mich. 587 [ 293 N.W. 763 ]). … See Muir-head v. Sands, 111 Mich. 487 , 69 N.W. 826 ; Board of Supervisors v. Hubinger, 137 Mich. 72 , 100 N.W. 261 , Ann. Cas. 792; Harsha v. City of Detroit, 261 Mich. 586 , 246 N.W. 849 , 90 A.L.R. 853 .”

People v. Mena

54 Cal. 4th 146 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 2012

(Leone v. Medical Board (2000) 22 Cal.4th 660, 668.) A writ of mandate, or mandamus, is an extraordinary writ known at common law. … (Powers v.

City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District

226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 51 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 2017

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 180.) The Legislature is, of course, free to impose additional requirements by statute. … We disapprove Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364, and Griffith v.

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 .)