Case law

Brown v. Volz

90 Cal. App. 2d 793 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1949

Brown got ill, I didn’t think Mrs. … Code, §§ 1577, 1578; Rued v. Cooper, 119 Cal. 463 [51 P. 704]; Hannah v. Steinman, 159 Cal. 142 [ 112 P. 1094 ]; Spear v. Farwell, 5 Cal.App.2d 111 [ 42 P.2d 391 ].)

People v. Brown

210 Cal. App. 3d 849 · California Court of Appeal · May 10, 1989

(People v. … In Illinois v.

People v. Brown

201 Cal. App. 3d 1296 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 1988

Introduction Appellant Teron Jason Brown suffered a conviction for involuntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (b)) following a court trial. … Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 1 Factual Background The information originally charged appellant with the murder of 14-inonth-old Chela Brown.

Jamison v. Brown

158 Cal. App. 2d 27 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1958

Furthermore, as is stated in Sternberg v. … In Golden State Glass Corp. v.

People v. Brown

170 Cal. App. 2d 80 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1959

As a result of a jury trial defendant-appellant Harry Stanley Brown was convicted of burglary, second degree. He admitted a prior felony conviction (violation of Veh. Code, § 503). A motion for new trial was denied. … (People v. Cavanaugh, 44 Cal.2d 252 [ 282 P.2d 53 ] ; People v. Coefield, 37 Cal.2d 865 [ 236 P.2d 570 ]; People v. Westek, 31 Cal.2d 469 [ 190 P.2d 9 ] ; People v. Cook, 148 Cal. 334 [ 83 P. 43 ] ; People v.

Herman v. Brown

91 Cal. App. 2d 758 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 1949

As was aptly stated in Greenfield v. … See Miles v. Bank of America etc.

People v. Brown

71 Cal. App. 2d 166 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1945

Since no other error is assigned we must affirm the judgment on the authority of People v. Hinkle, 64 Cal. App. 375 [ 221 P. 693 ] ; People v. Manning, 37 Cal.App.2d 41 [ 98 P.2d 748 ] ; People v. … Steinfeld, 38 Cal.App.2d 280 [ 101 P.2d 89 ]; People v. Roche, 68 Cal.App.2d 665 [ 157 P.2d 440 ]; and People v. Partee, 70 Cal.App.2d 736 [ 161 P.2d 586 ]. The judgment is affirmed.

People v. Brown

19 Cal. App. 3d 1013 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 1971

(People v. Smith, 63 Cal.2d 779, 798 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 409 P.2d 222 ]; People v. Burke, 47 Cal.2d 45, 49 [ 301 P.2d 241 ]; People v. Michael, 45 Cal.2d 751, 753 [ 290 P.2d 852 ].) … (People v. Harrington, 2 Cal.3d 991, 997 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 471 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Schomer, 17 Cal.App.3d 427, 434 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 125 ].) And there was no demand for entrance by the officer as in Parrish v.

People v. Brown

57 Cal. App. 2d 1018 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1943

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Parker, Director of Agriculture, et al. v. Brown, - U.S. - [ 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. -], is controlling upon this appeal.

People v. Brown

273 Cal. App. 2d 109 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1969

He relies on Stovall v. … Later in Simmons v.

Medina v. Brown

172 Cal. App. 2d 208 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 1959

Co. v. Rogers, 83 Cal. 10 [ 23 P. 196 , 17 Am.St.Rep. 209 ].) … (Marangi v. Domenici, 161 Cal.App. *212 2d 552 [ 326 P.2d 527 ].) The use may be exclusive in the required sense even though' it is participated in by the owner of the servient tenement. (Marangi v. Domenici, supra.)

People v. Brown

166 Cal. App. 3d 1166 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1985

(Durham v. United States (9th Cir. 1968) 403 F.2d 190, 194, fn. 6 .)” (Alexander v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 387, 393 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 483 , 508 P.2d 1131 ].) … {People v. Hernandez (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 581, 586 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 53 ].) In support of his challenge to the search, defendant cites Hemler v.

People v. Brown

99 Cal. App. 117 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1929

(People v. Flanagan, 65 Cal. App. 268, 275 [ 223 Pac. 1014 ].) The code fixes no time at which the conspiracy must be entered into. (People v. Holmes, 118 Cal. 444, 460 [ 50 Pac. 675 ].) … The facts delineated were sufficient on which the jury might, and doubtlessly did, base the inference that after Olson and Jurgensen left the defendant Brown and went up in the elevator the defendant Brown communicated with

People v. Brown

213 Cal. App. 3d 187 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1989

(People v. … (See Michigan v. Chesternut (1988) 486 U.S. 567, 576 [ 100 L.Ed.2d 565 , 573, 108 S.Ct. 1975 ]; cf. People v.

People v. Brown

169 Cal. App. 3d 313 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1985

(People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 612-613 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 477 P.2d 409 ].) … (People v. Crowson (1983) 33 Cal.3d 623, 634 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 660 P.2d 389 ].) Respondent relies on the recent decision in People v.

Brown v. Arbuckle

88 Cal. App. 2d 258 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1948

Plaintiff Brown testified that the repeated sight of visitors to the funeral parlor, showing signs and evidences of bereave *260 ment, would be a source of mental irritation. … (Davis v. Holmes (1940), 189 Miss. 554 [ 198 So. 25 ].) In Smith v.

Brown v. Meredith

220 Cal. App. 2d 762 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1963

(Huber v. Huber, 27 Cal.2d 784, 792 [ 167 P.2d 708 ]; Thomasset v. Thomasset, supra, at p. 126 .) … Code, § 1147; Hynes v. White, 47 Cal.App. 549 [ 190 P. 836 ]; 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law p. 807.)

Good v. Brown

51 Cal. App. 199 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1921

People v. Brown

152 Cal. App. 3d 674 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 29, 1984

in People v. … (People v. Hall, supra, 28 Cal.3d 143, 159 ; People v. Guzman, supra, 47 Cal.App.3d 380, 387.) In People v. Aho (1984) ante, pages 658, 661 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 671 ] and People v.

Brown v. Rainville

67 Cal. App. 2d 800 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 1945

Brown of Los Angeles, Calif, the sum of Three Thousand ($3,000.00) Dollars, inherited by me from the estate of my father, Samuel Newton Cline, and I direct that this sum be paid before any other bequest hereinafter made. … *805 present in the instant case, viz., that the testator intended to make an unconditional gift in the nature of a general legacy, and secondly, the bequest indicates the fund out of which the legacy is payable (Maxim v.