Case law

Boitez v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 2023

U.S. v. … U.S. v.

Pacific-Union Club v. Superior Court

232 Cal. App. 3d 60 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1991

(Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini, supra, 93 Cal.App.3d at p. 680; Wood v. … (See, e.g., Younger v. Jensen (1980) 26 Cal.3d 397 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 605 P.2d 813 ]; Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 55 ]; Fielder v.

In Re Rozzo

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 58 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 2008

(a)(18); People v. … (See People v.

Chase v. Kalber

28 Cal. App. 561 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 1915

(See Brown v. City of Galveston, 96 Tex. 1 , [ 75 S. W. 488 ] ; Walker v. City of Spokane, 62 Wash. 312 , [Ann. Cas. 1912C, 994, 113 Pac. 775, 780 ].) … In the very recent case of Hopping v.

Mae M. v. Komrosky

California Court of Appeal · May 19, 2025

Sandford (1857) 60 U.S. 393, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 163 U.S. 537, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, and including “the roles of civil rights advocates” like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcom X. … v.

Napa Ass'n of Public Employees v. County of Napa

98 Cal. App. 3d 263 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1979

A memorandum of understanding under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, once approved by the governing body, has the force of a binding agreement. (Glendale City Employees’ Assn., Inc. v. … We assume, since no contention is made to the contrary, that the memoranda at issue in this case were approved by the county board of supervisors.

Santa Clarita Org. for Planning etc. v. Abercrombie

California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 2015

v. … Brown v.

Pacific Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

269 Cal. App. 2d 793 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1969

(Steven v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 58 Cal.2d 862, 869, 884 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 377 P.2d 284 ]; Atlantic Nat. Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 65 Cal.2d 100, 111-112 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 416 P.2d 801 ]; Gray v. Zurich Ins. … and that it contracted to that effect with Brown-Massie; that Brown-Massie intended to obligate itself to provide liability insurance coverage for ear No. 901 and promised California Rent Car it would do so.

Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush

76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 342 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1998

(Board of Osteopathic Examiners v. … Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236, 241 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 ]), the same exception to the general rule as to facial challenges should apply.

Major v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 2017

(Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2012) 904 F.Supp.2d 1009, 1025-1026; appeal filed Mar. 10, 2016; Johnson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (D. Mass. 2004) 345 F.Supp.2d 16, 21; Conley v. R.J. … (Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (8th Cir. 2001) 260 F.3d 837, 848.)

Automobile Salesmen's Union v. Eastbay Motor Car Dealers, Inc.

10 Cal. App. 3d 419 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 1970

Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage etc. … J., and Brown (H. C.), J., concurred. Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 9, 1970.

In Re Title USA Ins. Corp.

36 Cal. App. 4th 363 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1995

In Clark v. … Rather it requires the fair and equal application of this state's laws to persons in this state. ( Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861-862 [ 106 Cal.

In Re Steiner

134 Cal. App. 2d 391 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1955

(Brown v. Superior Court, 70 Cal.App. 732, 735 [ 234 P. 409 ]; In re Cook, 77 Cal. 220, 227 [ 17 P. 923 , 19 P. 431 , 11 Am.St.Rep. 267 , 1 L.R.A. 567 ] ; Grim v. … (Gwinn v. Ryan, 33 Cal.2d 436 [ 202 P.2d 51 ].)” (Herrscher v. Herrscher, 41 Cal.2d 300, 304 [ 259 P.2d 901 ].) See also Steen v. Board of Civil Service Comrs., 26 Cal.2d 716, 727 [ 160 P.2d 816 , 160 A.L.R. 863 ] ; E.

People v. Acevedo

129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 270 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2003

(People v. Brown (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 596, 599-600 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 908 ] (Brown).) … As the Brown court observed, “[t]here was no testimony that established the color of the lights.” (Brown, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 600 .)

Janis v. California State Lottery Commission

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 549 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1998

Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. … (Brown v. California State Lottery Com. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1339 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 108 ] [no contract exists between lottery bettors and the state lottery].)

Amid v. Hawthorne Community Medical Group, Inc.

212 Cal. App. 3d 1383 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 1989

The hospital’s board of directors adopted a peer review committee’s evaluation of appellant’s medical performance and sent a copy of the report’s recommendations to an affiliated health insurer. … Brown (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 298, 302 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 461 ]), they will not do so “where an amended complaint attempts to avoid defects set forth in a prior complaint by ignoring them.

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons

114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 657 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2002

(See Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 746, 749 , 257 Cal. Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 .) … A "public figure" by choice has placed himself or herself in the "public eye"; such a person is also more able to command media attention to counteract falsehoods published about him or her. ( Brown v.

Fallis v. Department of Motor Vehicles

264 Cal. App. 2d 373 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1968

(See West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 [ 87 L.Ed. 1628 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ]; dissenting opinion of Justice Stone in Minersville v. … (Steen v. Board of Civil Service Comrs., 26 Cal.2d 716, 727 [ 160 P.2d 816 ].)

People v. Toomes

148 Cal. App. 2d 465 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 1957

148 Cal.App.2d 465 (1957) THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. JOHN H. TOOMES et al., Respondents. Crim. No. 5780. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Three. Feb. 11, 1957. Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, William E. … The movable frame or barrier of boards, or other material, usually turning on hinges or pivots or sliding, by which an entranceway into a house or apartment is closed and opened; also, a similar part of a piece of furniture

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 Pac. 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.