Case law

Vukovich v. Radulovich

235 Cal. App. 3d 281 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1991

(Watson v. Jones (1872) 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 727 [ 20 L.Ed. 666, 676 ].) The United States Supreme Court relied on this principle in Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. … (Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. at pp. 599-605 [61 L.Ed.2d at pp. 782-785]; Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, supra, 393 U.S. at p. 449 [ 21 L.Ed.2d at p. 665 ]; see Korean United Presbyterian Church v.

Las Posas Valley Water etc. v. Ventura County Waterworks etc.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 2026

Brown concluded there was no surplus available for appropriation. … (Robinson v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1162.) A “public agency” “includes any state agency, board, or commission and any local or regional agency, as defined in these guidelines.

Schmitt v. City of Rialto

164 Cal. App. 3d 494 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1985

(Ske lly v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 217 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 539 P.2d 774 ]; Magit v. Board of Medical Examiners (1961) 57 Cal.2d 74, 87 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 488 , 366 P.2d 816 ].) … (See Sunset Amusement Co. v. Board of Police Commissioners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 64, 76 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 768 , 496 P.2d 840 ]; Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 149 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 481 P.2d 242 ]; Merrill v.

People v. Lawrence

25 Cal. App. 3d 213 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1972

In People v. … In People v.

People v. Blau

140 Cal. App. 2d 193 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1956

(People v. Cook, 10 Cal.App.2d 54 [ 51 P.2d 169 ]; People v. Correa, 44 Cal.App. 634 [ 186 P. 1055 ]; People v. Mazzurco, 49 Cal.App. 275 [ 193 P. 164 ].) … (People v. Kromphold, 172 Cal. 512 [ 157 P. 599 ]; People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249 [ 232 P. 457 , 36 A.L.R. 1435 ]; People v. Gidney, 10 Cal.2d 138 [ 73 P.2d 1186 ]; People v.

Kevin R. v. Superior Court

191 Cal. App. 4th 676 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2010

Code, § 1473; People v. … See Bell v.

People v. Uribe

199 Cal. App. 4th 836 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2011

Although Brown did not recall if she spoke to Ritter in that initial contact or left a message, she testified that they spoke within 24 hours of Brown’s conversation with Benson. … (Contrary to Brown’s testimony, Benson recalled that the e-mail had been sent at least a week after his conversation with Brown.)

Queirolo v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

114 Cal. App. 610 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 1931

App. 736 [ 258 Pac. 627 ] ; Kilgore v. Brown, 90 Cal. 555 [ 266 Pac. 297 ]), or where the injured person is an invited guest (Brown v. Davis, 84 Cal. App. 180 [ 257 Pac. 877 ]). Nor, as held in Atkinson v. … App. 676 [ 117 Pac. 931 ]; Brown v. Davis, supra; Morris v. Morris, 84 Cal.

Best v. County of Los Angeles

228 Cal. App. 2d 655 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1964

The legal standard by which the action of the board may be reviewed judicially was stated in Bank of America v. … (Wells Fargo & Co. v. Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 194, 196 .)

Kendall v. Bd. of Osteopathic Examiners

105 Cal. App. 2d 239 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1951

(Rinker v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 59 Cal.App.2d 222, 224 [ 138 P.2d 403, 405 ]; People v. Emery, 79 Cal.App.2d 226, 231 [ 179 P.2d 843 ].) … Murphy v.

Bjorndal v. Superior Court

211 Cal. App. 4th 1100 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2012

(See Barth v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 826, 832 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 755 ] [time for filing disability pension claim tolled while plaintiff pursued workers’ compensation claim]; Collier v. … In Lantzy v.

In Re Dayan

231 Cal. App. 3d 184 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1991

In Board of Pardons v. Allen, supra, 482 U.S. 369 , the United States Supreme Court reiterated its holding in Greenholtz v. … (Board of Pardons v. Allen, supra, 482 U.S. at p. 373 [ 96 L.Ed.2d at p. 309 ].)

Lopez v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

250 Cal. App. 2d 210 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1967

Co. v. Brown, 63 Cal.2d 508 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 363 , 407 P.2d 275 ]; Hendricks v. Meritplan Ins. Co., 205 Cal.App.2d 133 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 682 ]). … Salsman, J., and Brown (H. C.), J., concurred.

Nilson v. Oakland Traction Co.

10 Cal. App. 103 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 1909

(Osgood v. Los Angeles etc. Ry. Co., 137 Cal. 280 , [ 92 Am. St. Rep. 171 , 70 Pac. 169 ]; Cody v. Market St. Ry. Co., 148 Cal. 90 , [ 90 Pac. 666 ].) … In McCurrie v.

Aas v. Avemco Insurance

55 Cal. App. 3d 312 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1976

The word ‘occupant’ means any person in, on or boarding the aircraft for the purpose of riding therein or alighting therefrom following a flight or attempted flight therein.” … (Ayer v. Boyle (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 822, 826-828 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 636 ]. See Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 882 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].)

St. Paul Mercury Insurance v. Frontier Pacific Insurance

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 416 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 2003

(Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2002) ¶ 10:147, p. 10-49; Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 222, fn. 3 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 525 ]; Brown v. … City of Fremont (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 141, 146 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 46 ].) “ ‘[A] pleader cannot blow hot and cold as to the facts positively stated.’ ” (Brown v. City of Fremont, supra, at p. 146.)

Davidson v. Baldwin

2 Cal. App. 733 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1906

In support of this contention the decision in San Diego v. … Proc., sec. 1908; Loftis v. Marshall, 134 Cal. 394 , [ 86 Am. St. Rep. 286 , 66 Pac. 571 ]; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 523; Freeman on Judgments, secs. 249, 352. And for discussion of the principle, see Sheehan v.

Bass v. Leavitt

11 Cal. App. 582 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 1909

The present case is not unlike that of Abbott v. … (Citing Minor v. Kidder, 43 Cal. 229 .)

Maggi v. Pompa

105 Cal. App. 496 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 1930

Thus in Michel v. … to prevent violation of the law; to make themselves familiar with the provisions of the Penal Code, the rules of the board of police commissioners and the orders of the board of supervisors and the board of health; to make

Taylor v. Forte Hotels International

235 Cal. App. 3d 1119 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1991

(Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) With these principles in mind we first turn to the meaning of the words “conversion” and “recovery.” … (Mateer v. Brown (1850) 1 Cal. 221, 227 .) He was liable for all injury or loss irrespective of negligence on his part, unless the cause was an act of God, public enemy, or negligence of the guest. (Pinkerton v.