Case law

Runo v. Williams

162 Cal. 444 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1912

Mannheimer, 24 Minn. 193 ]; Sparling v. Conway, 75 Mo. 510 ; Turner v. O’Brien, 5 Neb. 542 ; McKown v. Hunter, 30 N. Y. 625; White v. Tucker, 16 Ohio St. 468 . … Brown, 68 Mo. 627 , the direct question asked of defendant was whether he acted in good faith in making the charge, and in Sherburne, Admr. etc. v. Rodman, 51 Wis. 479 , [ 8 N.

California Improvement Co. v. Moran

128 Cal. 373 · California Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1900

(Donnelly v. Tillman, 47 Cal. 40 ; Reis v. Graff, 51 Cal. 86 ; Grimm v. O’Connell, 54 Cal. 522 ; Shipman v. Forbes, 97 Cal. 572 ; Perine v. Forbush, 97 Cal. 305 ; California Imp. Co. v. Quinchard, 119 Cal. 87 .) 3. … (Dougherty v. Coffin, 69 Cal. 454 ; Heft v. Payne, 97 Cal. 108 ; Manning v. Den, 90 Cal. 610 .) The case of Spaulding v. North etc.

People v. Izaguirre

42 Cal. 4th 126 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2007

(See People v. Pearson (1986) 42 Cal.3d 351 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 509 , 721 P.2d 595 ] (Pearson).) The holding in Sloan is consistent with this court’s recent decision in People v. … (Brown v. Ohio (1977) 432 U.S. 161, 165 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 187 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 ], italics added.)

People v. Staten

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 213 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2000

In People v. … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

People v. California Fish Co.

166 Cal. 576 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1913

(Mayrhofer v. Board, 89 Cal. 112 , [ 23 Am. St. Rep. 451 , 26 Pac. 646 ].) … Kimball v. Macpherson, and People v.

Mason v. Lyl Productions

69 Cal. 2d 79 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1968

With respect to the determination of the reasonableness of such an order, the following rule set forth in May v. … In Yakov v.

People v. Rodriguez

17 Cal. 4th 253 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1998

In this case we consider how People v. … (See generally, People v. Equarte (1986) 42 Cal.3d 456, 465 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 116 , 722 P.2d 890 ]; see also, e.g., People v. Sohal (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 911, 915 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 ]; People v.

City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

196 Cal. 445 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1925

Bird, 60 Cal. 372, 375 , and Lassen v. Board of Dental Examiners, 24 Cal. App. 767, 770 [ 142 Pac. 505 ]. … The case of Green v. City of Los Angeles, 65 Cal.

City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court

49 Cal. 3d 74 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1989

As this court explained in Brown v. … Proc., § 170]; Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers, supra, 206 Cal. at pp. 520-521; [affidavit on information and belief adequate to support change of venue motion]; Davis-Heller-Pearce Co. v.

Tannhauser v. Adams

31 Cal. 2d 169 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1947

In other instances, the land involved was exempt from the “tax” for which it had been sold (see Hutchison v. Brown (1917), 66 Okla. 250 [ 167 P. 624 ]; Taylor v. … In Meigs v.

Finnegan v. Royal Realty Co.

35 Cal. 2d 409 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1950

Board of Trustees, 64 Cal.App.2d 197, 204, 205 [ 148 P.2d 405 ], hearing denied; Dennis v. Gonzales, 91 Cal.App.2d 203 [ 205 P.2d 55 ].) … (Scholey v. Steele, 59 Cal.App.2d 402 [ 138 P.2d 733 ]; Anthony v. Hobbie, 25 Cal.2d 814 [ 155 P.2d 826 ]; Stockwell v. Board of Trustees, 64 Cal.App.2d 197 [ 148 P.2d 405 ].)

Canfield v. County of Los Angeles

157 Cal. 617 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1910

(American Coal Co. v. Allegany County, *621 59 Md. 185 ; Dwight v. Boston, 12 Allen, 316 , [ 90 Am. Dec. 149 ]; Nevada Bank v. Sedgwick, 104 U. S. 111 , [ 26 L. Ed. 703 ]; Kelley v. Rhodes, 7 Wyo. 237 , [ 75 Am. St. … In Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 146 , [16 Sup.

People v. Moore

47 Cal. 3d 63 · California Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1988

(People v. … Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 456 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].

People v. LeBeau

39 Cal. 2d 146 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1952

Brown, Attorney General, Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, J. Frank Coakley, District Attorney (Alameda), and Vernon L. Goodin, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent. GIBSON, C.J. … (See People v. Jacobs, 49 Cal. 384 ; People v. DeWitt, 68 Cal. 584, 588 [ 10 P. 212 ]; People v. Wallace, 89 Cal. 158, 164 [ 26 P. 650 ]; People v.

Estate of Mitchell

10 Cal. 2d 628 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1938

In Attorney General v. State Board of Judges, 38 Cal. 291, 296 , the word was referred to as signifying an enclosure or assemblage of fruit or nut-bearing trees”. … Webster’s definition of “an enclosure containing fruit trees” was adopted in Wright v.

People v. Nguyen

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548 · California Supreme Court · Jan 17, 2001

In People v. … Mosk, J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

People v. Carmen

43 Cal. 2d 342 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1954

Brown, Attorney General, Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, Winslow Christian, Wallace G. Colthurst and Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, Andrew J. Eyman, Special Deputy Attorney General, Walter L. … (See Board of Comrs. of Creek County v. Seber, 318 U.S. 705, 715, 718 [ 63 S.Ct. 920 , 87 L.Ed. 1094 ] [exemption of Indian's land from taxation]; United States v.

Hoffman v. Brandt

65 Cal. 2d 549 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1966

And he has—counsel knows full well what the situation is, and he has asked for $19,000.00 on the board. “The Court: All right, I will tell you what I am going to do. … Co. v.

People v. Valdez

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 271 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2004

(See People v. … Kennard, J., and Brown, J., concurred. Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied February 24, 2004. Kennard, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Steven A. v. Rickie M.

1 Cal. 4th 816 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1992

(Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 724 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ].) We must begin with the words of the statute. (Delaney v. … (Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., supra, 48 Cal.3d 711,734-735 .) Moreover, the observation as to constructive receipt was made in a lead opinion signed by only two justices.