Case law

Estate of Mears

90 Cal. App. 3d 885 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1979

KENNETH CORY, as State Controller, Petitioner and Appellant, v. ALFRED L. BROWN, Objector and Respondent. Docket No. 43653. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two. … Brown, objector and respondent in this case, and to others, the corpora of two revocable trusts held in California.

Roten-Oeschger v. Flournoy

72 Cal. App. 3d 254 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1977

State Board of Education, 57 Cal.2d 167, 172-173 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 367 P.2d 865 ]; Montecito Co. Water Dist. v. Doulton, 193 Cal. 398, 403 [ 224 P. 747 ]). … Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Cologne, J., concurred.

CA School Boards v. St. Bd. of Ed.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2015

. v. … Brown, Deputy Solicitor General; and Deputy Attorneys General Karin S. Schwartz, Susan M. Carson, and Hadara R. Stanton for Respondent and Appellant. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, Gregory V.

State ex rel. Cranston v. County of San Diego

254 Cal. App. 2d 535 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1967

Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Whelan, J., concurred. … (Foothill Junior College Dist. v. Board of Supervisors, 57 Cal.2d 771, 773-774 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 371 P.2d 977 ], Pasadena Junior College Dist. v. Board of Supervisors, 216 Cal. 61, 72 [ 13 P.2d 678 ].)

Scoville v. Dodge

54 Cal. App. 795 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 1921

The facts in this case are in all essentials parallel to those shown by the record in Brigden et al. v. Dodge et al., ante, p. 266 [ 201 P. 631 ]. Pursuant to stipulation, both cases were submitted on the same briefs. … For the same reasons as those stated in the opinion filed in Brigden et al. v. Dodge et al. the judgment herein is affirmed.

Dunne v. Phoenix Insurance

113 Cal. App. 256 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1931

Co. v. Abrams, 89 Fed. 932 ; Raulet v. Northwestern etc. Ins. Co., 157 Cal. 213 [ 107 Pac. 292 ].) … Co. v. Western Assur. Co., 167 Cal. 348 [ 139 Pac. 807 ]; Wilkinson v. Standard etc. Co., 180 Cal. 252 [ 180 Pac. 607 ].)

In re Hguyen

195 Cal. App. 4th 1020 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2011

The Governor’s decision is to be based upon the same factors the Board is required to consider. (Id. at pp. 625-626; Cal. Const., art. V, § 8, subd. … Since Governor Schwarzenegger vacated the Board’s grant of parole in this matter, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., has assumed the office of Governor upon his election.

People v. Roper

144 Cal. App. 3d 1033 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 1983

City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. … (People v. Superior Court (Giron) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 793, 798 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 523 P.2d 636 ]; In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 685 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 511 P.2d 1153 ].)

Flynn v. Manson

19 Cal. App. 400 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1912

“In Urton v. … K Marsh. (8 Ky.) 457; Brown v. Town of Louisburg, 126 N. C. 701 , [ 78 Am. St. Rep. 677 , 36 S. E. 166 ]; El Paso & S. R. Co. v. Darr (Tex. Civ. App.), 93 S. W. 166 ; Ayer v. Ashmead, 31 Conn. 447 , [ 83 Am.

Anderson v. Pittenger

197 Cal. App. 2d 188 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1961

In *194 Steen v. … In Buswell v.

Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo

176 Cal. App. 4th 357 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 4, 2009

(DeVita v. County of Napa, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 775 ; Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors (1994) 8 Cal.4th 765, 777 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 814 , 884 P.2d 645 ].) … A similar argument was rejected in Rossi v. Brown (1995) 9 Cal.4th 688 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 363 , 889 P.2d 557 ].

Glenn v. Gibson

75 Cal. App. 2d 649 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1946

(Heame v. DeYoung, 119 Cal. 670 [ 52 P. 150, 499 ]; Kurata v. Los Angeles News Pub. Co., 4 Cal.App.2d 224, 227 [ 40 P.2d 520 ]; Mortensen v. Los Angeles Examiner, 112 Cal.App. 194, 203 [ 296 P. 927 ]; Skrocki v. … (Draper v. Hellman etc. Bank, 203 Cal. 26, 42-43 [ 263 P. 240 ]; Davis v.

People v. Carter

75 Cal. App. 3d 865 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1977

(See People v. Norwood (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 148, 159 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 7 ].) … The court drew analogies from other unlawful possession cases: People v.

Goodman v. County of Riverside

140 Cal. App. 3d 900 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1983

The debt need not be bonded debt (County of Shasta v. County of Trinity (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 30, 39 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 18 ]), nor need it be expressed as a particular, concrete sum (Carman v. … (Noroian v. Department of Administration (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 651, 655 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 889 ].)

H. W. Stanfield Construction Corp. v. Robert McMullan & Son, Inc.

14 Cal. App. 3d 848 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1971

In Drennan v. … The judgment in the case at bench was proper under the facts found and the law as declared in Drennan v. Star Paving Co., supra, 51 Cal.2d 409 . The judgment is affirmed. Brown, P. J., and Ault, J., concurred.

Utility Audit Co. v. City of Los Angeles

5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 520 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 2003

In Currie v. Workers’ Comp. … Board, of Supervisors (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 399, 407-408 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 668 ].)

People v. Nunez

California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 2013

During the briefing stages of this case, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 (Brown). … Code, § 1170 et seq.) or by the Board of Prison Terms (Pen.

Moyer v. Hook

10 Cal. App. 3d 491 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1970

BROWN (H. C.), J. … (See Schulstad v. City & County of San Francisco, 74 Cal.App.2d 105, 107 [ 168 P.2d 68 ], citing cases; also Rand v. Andreatta, 60 Cal.2d 846 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 846 , 389 P.2d 382 ]; McGranahan v. Rio Vista etc.

Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2025

Johnson showed Williamson the Brown email, and Williamson read it. On February 3, 2022, Sims sent a letter to Shepardson. Citing Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981) 449 U.S. 383, Commodity Futures Trading Com. v. … The ruling concluded that Caltrans had made a showing that the Brown email was covered by the attorney- client privilege. Citing Upjohn Co. v.

Howard v. County of Amador

220 Cal. App. 3d 962 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1990

(Bret Harte Inn, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (1976) 16 Cal.3d 14, 23 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 154 , 544 P.2d 1354 ]; Board of Supervisors v. Archer (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 717, 724 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 379 ].) … The County asserts that the board was acting as a board of equalization and, in fact, the board purported to be sitting as a board of equalization.