Case law

People v. Carvajal

202 Cal. App. 3d 487 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1988

(People v. Leonard (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 235, 239 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 757 ].) Under Rakas v. … (People v. James, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 107 .) Detective Brown testified that Montoya and Martinez were arrested and taken into custody after the search of the boxes yielded cocaine.

People v. James

196 Cal. App. 3d 272 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1987

During another ride in the car, Brown testified James seemed to be upset and said, “Bitch, jump out the window.” Christa got up and reached for the window, but Brown stopped her. … (People v.

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Superior Court

184 Cal. App. 4th 1124 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2010

Fallon, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 884 , quoting Meyer v. State Board of Equalization (1954) 42 Cal.2d 376, 384 [ 267 P.2d 257 ].) Thus, an amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints. (Grell v. … (See Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries (1994) 7 Cal.4th 926, 931 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 440 , 873 P.2d 613 ].)

Cope v. Flannery

70 Cal. App. 738 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1925

In McFarland v. … In Nickerson v.

Stubbs v. Abercrombie

42 Cal. App. 170 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1919

Brown, and the plaintiff received a check for $1,615, that being the amount paid by Brown, less escrow and recordation fees. Meanwhile the first escrow failed because of Mrs. Abercrombie’s loss of record title. … A. 707, 29 Pac. 707 ]; Wheeler v. West, 78 Cal. 95 , [ 20 Pac. 45 ] ; Hackett v. Bank of California, 57 Cal. 335 ; Ramirez v. Murray, 5 Cal. 222 ; Wilson v. Lassen, 5 Cal. 114 .

Khoury v. Comprehensive Health Agency, Inc.

140 Cal. App. 3d 714 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1983

(Union Bond & Trust Co. v. M. & M. Woodworking Co. (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 673, 679 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 920 ].) Plaintiffs could have also sought a stipulated extension. In support of their position, plaintiffs cite Brown v. … (Brown v. Engstrom, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d at p. 520 .) The judgment is affirmed.

People v. Gardner

147 Cal. App. 2d 530 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 1957

Robertson left the store, followed by Browning. Before leaving, Browning told his wife to call the police. Robertson got into a new, cream-colored Mercury. Browning followed in his car. … The officers called Browning into the apartment house. Defendant was sitting on the floor. Browning had not seen him in the grocery-store. Defendant was then taken to the police station.

Kings County Farm Bureau v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 2025

(v).) … Que, Inc. v.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Coachella Valley Water Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2025

determined by the board. … (See Friedland v.

Koepnick v. Kashiwa Fudosan America, Inc.

173 Cal. App. 4th 32 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 2009

(Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation (1943) 23 Cal.2d 256, 259-260 [ 143 P.2d 929 ] (Brown); Srithong, at p. 726.) … (See Miller v. Stouffer (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 70, 83-85 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 ]; Rashtian v.

Hammel v. Neylan

31 Cal. App. 21 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1916

(Inglin v. Hoppin, 156 Cal. 483 , [ 105 Pac. 582 ].) … (Lawrence v. Booth, 46 Cal. 187 .)

Dutart v. Woodward

99 Cal. App. 736 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 5, 1929

(Saxton v. Board of Education of Los Angeles County School Dist., 206 Cal. 758 [ 276 Pac. 998 ].) … and there await the further pleasure of the board, is a right and discretion vested by the law in the board—and nowhere else. ’ ’ There is no doubt that within the limitations prescribed by law and reason the school board

Shell Western E & P, Inc. v. County of Lake

224 Cal. App. 3d 974 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1990

(Cochran v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 85 *980 Cal.App.3d 75, 80 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 304 ].) Early statements that factual findings made by local boards are “final and conclusive” (Universal Cons. Oil Co. v. … (See Cochran v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 85 Cal.App.3d 75 at p. 80 ; Board of Supervisors v. Archer, supra, 18 Cal.App.3d 717 at p. 723 .) 6 “Against an unwilling party; against one not assenting.

In Re Capistran

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 872 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 2003

V, § 8, subd. (b) (hereafter Article V, section 8(b).) … The court also recognized, however, that Article V, section 8(b) and section 3041.2 “give rise to a protected liberty interest” in that “a prisoner granted parole by the Board has an expectation that the Governor’s decision

In Re Burns

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2006

People v. … (See People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 150 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 796 , 825 P.2d 781 ]; People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 563 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 809 P.2d 290 ].) In any event, the claim has no merit.

Dubac v. Itkoff

California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 2024

Message two was to Dubac’s wife and the board of this small homeowners association. … (Talega Maintenance Corp. v.

Estate of Miller

230 Cal. App. 2d 888 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 1964

Bank v. … In Zappettini v.

People v. V.A. CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 2024

Filed 11/19/24 P. v. V.A. … (See Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. at pp. 479–480.) “Historically, [the Board of Parole Hearings] was responsible for conducting parole revocation hearings.” (DeLeon, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 647.)

Sterling Liquor Distributors, Inc. v. County of Orange

3 Cal. App. 3d 510 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 1970

Defendants’ basic contention on appeal is that this court should abrogate the “original package doctrine” as first enunciáted by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. … Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat., 419 [ 6 L.Ed. 678 ]. As this Court stated almost a century ago in Low v.

Midstate Theatres, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus

55 Cal. App. 3d 864 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1976

Respondent cites Ford v. … Oil Co. v. Byram (1944) 25 Cal.2d 353 [ 153 P.2d 746 ]; Bandini Estate Co. v.