Case law

Steiner v. Darby

88 Cal. App. 2d 481 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 1948

See, also, Danskin v. San Diego Unified School Dist., 28 Cal.2d 536, 548 [ 171 P.2d 885 ]; Congress of Industrial Organ, v. City of Dallas, (Tex.Civ.App.) 198 S.W.2d 143, 146 ; Bell v. … (United Public Workers v.

Jarvis v. Bloodgood

25 Cal. App. 3d 694 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1972

(County of Los Angeles v. … (Harris v. Gibbins, 114 Cal. 418, 421 [ 46 P. 292 ]; City of Santa Monica v. Grubb, 245 Cal.App.2d 718, 726 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 210 ]; County of Los Angeles v. Nesvig, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d at pp. 616, 617; Ravettino v.

De La Cuesta v. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

121 Cal. App. 3d 328 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1981

But this mistakes the plenary authority of the Board to regulate and control federal savings and loan associations (see, e.g., Conference of Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’ns v. … (Wellenkamp v.

Hamilton v. Bd. of Supervisors of Santa Barbara Cty.

269 Cal. App. 2d 64 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 1969

Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767, 775 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 146 , 427 P.2d 810 ].) With these concepts in mind, we turn to examine the “findings” on which the board’s order rests. … It is too late to urge, in this court, for the first time, a technical issue which could easily have been resolved at the trial level. 4 Compare Robison v.

People v. Brooks

189 Cal. App. 3d 866 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1987

In custody, Brooks identified himself as Rahsaam Brown. Brooks later testified he never used the name Rahsaam Brown. … On February 1,1984, a criminal complaint was filed in San Diego charging Rahsaan A1 Brown aka Rahsaam Brown with auto theft and robbery with a deadly weapon enhancement.

Marlin v. AIMCO VENEZIA, LLC

64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 488 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 2007

See City of Santa Monica v. … City of Cotati v. Cashman, supra, 29 Cal.4th at page 78. 16 Cf. Gallimore v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1399 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 560 ]. 17 Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. v.

Oddo v. Hedde

101 Cal. App. 2d 375 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1950

Kaeser, 196 Cal. 686, 700 [ 239 P. 324 ]; Binford v. Boyd, 178 Cal. 458, 462 [ 174 P. 56 ]; San Diego & A. R. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 165 Cal. 560, 567 [ 132 P. 1044 ]; People v. … In Norwood v.

In Re Waters of Soquel Creek Stream System

79 Cal. App. 3d 682 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 1978

CITY OF CAPITOLA, Petitioner and Respondent, v. CHY COMPANY et al., Claimants and Respondents; STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, Appellant. Docket No. 41457. … In Tulare Dist. v.

People v. Union Oil Co.

268 Cal. App. 2d 566 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1968

In People v. … (See Meyer v. Board of Trustees (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 420, 431-432 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 717 ].)

Wallace v. Regents of University

75 Cal. App. 274 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 1925

(Abell v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226 [ 24 Pac. 383 ]; French v. Davidson, 143 Cal. 658 [ 77 Pac. 663 ]; State Board of Health v. Board of Trustees, 13 Cal. App. 514 [ 110 Pac. 137 ].) … He was denied the relief prayed for (Williams v. Wheeler, 23 Cal. App. 619 [ 138 Pac. 937 ]).

Prairie Oil Co. v. Carleton

91 Cal. App. 2d 555 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1949

(Kern Sunset Oil Co. v. … (Extension Oil Co. v. Richfield Oil Corp., 52 Cal.App.2d 105,108 [ 125 P.2d 895 ].)

Jaynes v. Stockton

193 Cal. App. 2d 47 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1961

Code, §§ 26529, 27642), providing his office is subject to the general law {Board of Supervisors v. … The appellants contend that this conclusion is contrary to the decisions in Handler v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 39 Cal.2d 282 ; Cobb v.

Patten v. County of San Diego

106 Cal. App. 2d 467 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 1951

Board of Supervisors of San Diego County, 55 Cal.App.2d 883 [ 132 P.2d 276 ]. … (Bank of Italy v. Johnson, 200 Cal. 1, 31 [251 P.784].) *471 Mandamus will not lie to recover the claimed item of $157, under the theory it was allowable costs. (Hunt v.

People v. Root

172 Cal. App. 3d 774 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1985

Paul Cassotta then exited 22859, got into a brown Datsun and drove into the driveway of 22908. … (Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 230 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 214 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ].)

Laube v. Stroh

2 Cal. App. 4th 364 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 1992

(See Fromberg v. Dept. Alcoholic Bev. Control (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 230, 233-234 [ 337 P.2d 123 ]; Endo v. State Board of Equalization (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 395, 401-402 [ 300 P.2d 366 ].) A. … (Swegle v. State Board of Equalization, supra, 125 Cal.App.2d at p. 438 .)

Walters v. Pine Cove County Water District

177 Cal. App. 2d 498 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1960

Co. v. Kings County Water District, 47 Cal.2d 140 [ 302 P.2d 1 ], that the board erred and abused its discretion in refusing to exclude the property. … The trial court held, however, pursuant to the rules laid down in Fascination, Inc. *500 v. Hoover, 39 Cal.2d 260 [ 246 P.2d 656 ], that the matter should be remanded to the board for further hearing.

Paulus v. Bauder

106 Cal. App. 2d 589 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1951

Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 181 Cal. 460, 465 [ 184 P. 864 ]; and Leupe v. Leupe, 21 Cal.2d 145, 148 [ 130 P.2d 697 ]. … (Olson v. Superior Court, 175 Cal. 250 [ 165 P. 706 , 1 A.L.R. 1589 ]; Brown v. Brown, 170 Cal. 1 [ 147 P. 1168 ]; Civ. Code, § 131; Remley v. Remley, 49 Cal.App. 489 [ 193 P. 604 ].)

People v. Smith

128 Cal. App. 2d 706 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1954

(People v. Russell, 34 Cal.App.2d 665 [ 94 P.2d 400 ]; People v. Taylor, 4 Cal.App.2d 214 [ 40 P.2d 870 ]; People v. Russell, 120 Cal.App. 622 [ 8 P.2d 209 ].) … {People v. Casillas, 60 Cal.App.2d 785 [ 141 P.2d 768 ].)

People v. Eberhard

114 Cal. App. 2d 133 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 1952

(Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 [ 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 ] discussed in 38 Cal.L.Rev. 498. See, also, *138 Stefanelli v. … The testimony of the doctor in our- case has nothing in common with the forced confessions .used in violation of the due process clause in Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 [ 56 S.Ct. 461 , 80 L.Ed. 682 ]; Chambers v.

People v. Smith

166 Cal. App. 2d 616 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1958

He testified further that about 12:30 a.m. on November 30 he saw appellant driving a black 1947 Cadillac sedan car and that the left rear windwing of the car was missing; at that time one Williams and one Brown were with … In People v.