Case law

People v. Yang

California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2022

This argument fails under People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 (Brown). (See also People v. Orellana (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 319, 334–338 (Orellana).) … (Brown, at p. 325.)

People v. Cain

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 836 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 2000

[Citation.]’ ” (People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 63 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 77 ], citing People v. Whisenand (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391 .) … The Board adopted a set of regulations for the express purpose of enforcing and implementing Government Code section 13959. (Graham v. State Bd. of Control (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 253, 258 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 146 ].

Fresno City High School District v. Dillon

34 Cal. App. 2d 636 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 1939

In Smith v. … In Price v.

Reich v. Webb

218 Cal. App. 2d 862 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 1963

As stated in Larwood Co. v. San Diego Fed. … (Larwood Co. v. San Diego Fed. S. & L. Assn., supra, p. 453.) In Woodard v. Broadway Fed. S. & L.

Concord Christian Center v. Open Bible Standard Churches

34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 2005

V, § 1.) … (Singh v.

Elmore v. Imperial Irrigation District

159 Cal. App. 3d 185 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1984

In National Audubon Society v. … In Kentfield v.

Vanderstok v. Bank of America

29 Cal. App. 3d 731 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1972

Palm Springs Alpine Estates, 66 Cal.2d 782, 788 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 427 P.2d 805 ]; Vallelunga v. Gomes, 102 Cal.App.2d 374, 382 [ 227 P.2d 550 ].)” (Brown v. Brown, 22 Cal.App.3d 82, 84 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 311 ].) … Relying on Brown v.

Saso v. Furtado

104 Cal. App. 2d 759 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1951

But there must be read into these agreements the condition that the transfers must be subject to the approval of the board and subject to its rules. As said in Leboire v. … Here it is simply an agreement to retransfer the license, subject, of course, to the board’s rules. Nor does the case of Hooper v. Barranti, 81 Cal.App.2d 570 [ 184 P.2d 688 ], apply.

Kurz v. Syrus Systems, LLC

221 Cal. App. 4th 748 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 2013

(Castleman v. … Kurz v.

People v. City of Reedley

66 Cal. App. 409 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1924

(Voorheis v. Tidewater Southern Ry. Co., 41 Cal. App. 315 [ 182 Pac. 797 ]; Coats v. Atchison, 1 Cal. App. 441 [ 82 Pac. 640 ]; Sullivan v. Royer, 72 Cal. 248 [ 1 Am. St. Rep. 51 , 13 Pac. 655 ].) … Co. v. Mott, 98 Tex. 91 [70 L. R. A. 579, 81 S. W. 285 ].

Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Commission

209 Cal. App. 3d 732 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1989

In Schad v. … (Paoli v.

No Wetlands Landfill Expansion v. County of Marin

204 Cal. App. 4th 573 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 2012

(See Sierra Club v. … California v. California Quartet, Ltd. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 517 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 889 ] is misplaced.

County of Humboldt v. Shelly

220 Cal. App. 2d 194 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 1963

(Lynch v. Birdwell (1955) 44 Cal.2d 839, 851 [ 285 P.2d 919 ]; Brown v. Regan (1938) 10 Cal.2d 519, 523 [ 75 P.2d 1063 ]; Bisnett v. Hollis (1962) 207 Cal.App.2d 142, 150 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 231 ].) … In People v.

Messick v. Houx Bros., Inc.

105 Cal. App. 637 · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 1930

In the case of Andrews v. … In Brown v.

Nulsen v. Nulsen

3 Cal. App. 2d 407 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1934

.; Brown v. Sterling Furniture Co., 175 Cal. 563 [ 166 Pac. 322 ]; Lewis v. Hammond Lumber Co., 114 Cal. App. 390 [ 300 Pac. 49 ]; Tromanhauser v. Grisemer, 123 Cal. App. 153 [ 11 Pac. (2d) 32 ].) … (Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 39 Cal. App. 738 [ 179 Pac. 697 ].)

Bandini Estate Co. v. Payne

10 Cal. App. 2d 623 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1935

(Tilden v. Board of Supervisors, 41 Cal. 68 ; Sullivan v. Gage, 145 Cal. 759, 767 [ 79 Pac. 537 ]; La Grange etc. Co. v. Carter, 142 Cal. 560, 565 [ 76 Pac. 241 ]; Hammond Lumber Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 104 Cal. … Proc.; People v. Board of Supervisors, 27 Cal. 655 .) The complaint must consist of a statement of facts ‘ ‘ in ordinary and concise language ”. (Sec. 426, Code Civ. Proc.)

Sargon Enterprises v. Browne George Ross

California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2017

BC546363) v. BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Fredrick C. Shaller, Judge. … Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 32 [(Moncharsh)], Board of Education v. Round Valley Teachers Assn. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 269, 275–277 [(Round Valley)], and Richey v.

Ellerbroek v. Saddleback Valley Unified School District

125 Cal. App. 3d 348 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 1981

(See Hayward v. Pimental (1895) 107 C. 386 , 390, 40 P. 545 ; Scannell v. Wolff (1948) 85 C.A.2d 489, 491, 195 P.2d 636 ; cf. Weisman v. Board of B. & S. Commrs. (1927) 85 C.A. 493, 494, 259 P. 768 ; Jaquith v. … Employers Council v. Quillin, supra, at p. 221 ; Midstate Theatres, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 204, 212 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 894 ]; Madonna v.

George v. Beaty

85 Cal. App. 525 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 1927

Good v. Howard, 174 Ind. 358 [ 92 N. E. 115 ], American Eng. Co. v. Metropolitan By-Products Co., 280 Fed. 677 , St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Messenger, 26 Okl. 590 [ 110 Pac. 893 ], and Double v. … It is said in State v.

Santa Ana School District v. Talbert

19 Cal. App. 104 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 1912

of education and the same were duly certified to the board of supervisors of Orange county, together with all proceedings had in the premises; that on the ninth day of January, 1912, said board authorized and directed the … (State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501 ; Mack v. Jastro, 126 Cal. 130, *107 [ 58 Pac. 372 ].)