Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filterscalctapp

10,000+ results

2.59s

  • Fresno County Department of Social Services v. Irene H.

    188 Cal. App. 3d 399 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1986

    Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 669 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 810 ]. … (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ].) II., III * *406 Decision The judgment is affirmed. Brown (G. A.), P. J., and Hamlin, J., concurred.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Randolph v. City of Los Angeles

    67 Cal. App. 3d 201 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1977

    (See Wiles v. State Personnel Board, 19 Cal.2d 344, 347-348 [ 121 P.2d 673 ]; Waters v. Civil Service Board, 133 Cal.App.2d 733, 736 [ 284 P.2d 919 ].) … Broyles v. State Personnel Board, 42 Cal.App.2d 303, 307 [ 108 P.2d 714 ].)

    Disapproved in part by Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 22 Cal. 3d 658 (1978)Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Mullins v. Toothman

    231 Cal. App. 2d 756 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1965

    He was not subject to the rule stated in Martin v. Henderson, supra, Pootel v. City & County of San Francisco, 125 Cal.App.2d 378 [ 270 P.2d 553 ], and Welshans v. … Mass v. Board of Education, 61 Cal.2d 612, 624 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 394 P.2d 579 ].)

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Schwerdtfeger v. State of California

    148 Cal. App. 2d 335 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 1957

    (Austin v. Riverside Portland Cement Co., 44 Cal.2d 225 [ 282 P.2d 69 ]; Saba v. Jacobs, 130 Cal.App.2d 717 [ 279 P.2d 826 ]; Fraters v. Keeling, 20 Cal.App.2d 490 [67 P.2d 118]; Aguilar v. Riverdale C.C. … (See Blumberg v. M. & T. Inc., 34 Cal.2d 226 [ 209 P.2d 1 ]; Harris v. Joffe, 28 Cal.2d 418 [ 170 P.2d 454 ] ; Pfingst v. Mayer, 93 Cal.App.2d 265 [ 208 P.2d 1002 ]; Foster v. A. P.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • People v. Sergio M.

    13 Cal. App. 4th 809 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1993

    Only one car, a brown Regal or Monte Carlo, came up to them while she was there. … (Hines v. Superior Court, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1234 ; People v. Walker, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 236 .)

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Nishkian v. City of Long Beach

    103 Cal. App. 2d 749 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1951

    (Cantrell v. Board of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.2d 471 [ 197 P.2d 218 ].) … v.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Curl v. Pacific Home

    108 Cal. App. 2d 655 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 1952

    In Von Arx v. … Proc. § 416, and Gorman v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Holguin Family Ventures v. County of Ventura

    California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2024

    (Akella v. … (Saraswati v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Karides v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

    164 Cal. App. 2d 549 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1958

    Swegle v. State Board of Equalization, 125 Cal.App.2d 432, 438 [ 270 P.2d 518 ]; Maxwell Café v. Department Alcoholic etc. Control, 142 Cal.App.2d 73, 76 [ 298 P.2d 64 ]; Endo v. … Munro v. Alcoholic etc. Appeals Board, 154 Cal. App.2d 326, 329 [ 316 P.2d 401 ].)

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • In Re Dennis

    46 Cal. App. 3d 50 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1975

    Brown. … (People v. Brown, 29 Cal.2d 555 ; People v. Knowles, 35 *59 Cal.2d 175; In re Ward, 64 Cal.2d 672 ; People v. Gomez, 252 Cal.App.2d 844 ; People v. Paxton, 255 Cal.App.2d 62 .)”

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Severance v. Ball

    93 Cal. App. 56 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1928

    (Sarter v. Siskiyou, County, 42 Cal. App. 530 [ 183 Pac. 852 ]; Welsh v. Bramlett, 98 Cal. 219 [ 33 Pac. 66 ]; Humboldt County v. Stern, 136 Cal. 63 [ 68 Pac. 324 ]; Humiston v. Shaffer, 145 Cal. 195 [ 78 Pac. 651 ].) … The board of supervisors might have had the mileage measured in a different manner, but that does not prevent the board of supervisors from adopting the method pursued in the instant case.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • People v. Weathers

    274 Cal. App. 2d 232 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1969

    paper bearing the writing “1414 Peagreen Street, Greenville Hotel, Jabbo Brown.” … Haston, supra, at p. 248 ; People v. Fleig, 253 Cal.App.2d 634, 639-640 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 397 ] ; People v. Pell, 258 Cal.App.2d 379, 382 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 603 ]. Cf. People v. Peete, supra, 28 Cal.2d 306, 318 ; People v.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Export Leaf Tobacco Co. v. County of Los Angeles

    89 Cal. App. 2d 909 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1949

    The wharf demurrage period ended on March 29, 1942, and it was necessary to secure a reduction of rates from the Board of Harbor Commissioners of Los Angeles. … Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. (US) 419, 6 L ed 678; Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania, 245 US 292 , 62 L ed 295, 38 S Ct 126 . But there are important differences between the two.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • People v. Castellanos

    175 Cal. App. 4th 1524 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2009

    Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, and Sarah J. Farhat, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. … (See People v. Taylor (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 454, 456 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 923 ]; People v.

    Cited 68 timesPublished
  • Kunert v. MISSION FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP.

    1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 589 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 2003

    (Boerner v. … Co. v.

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • People v. Smith

    38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2006

    (See People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 534 , 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 73 P.3d 1137 ( Brown ) [evidentiary rulings reviewed for an abuse of discretion].) Taffolla's statements qualified as spontaneous statements. … People v.

    Overruled on other grounds by People v. Garcia, 168 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2008)Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Hock Investment Co. v. City & County of San Francisco

    215 Cal. App. 3d 438 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 1989

    (Raley v. … We agree that an internal administrative order does not supersede legislation adopted by the board of supervisors. (See McDonald’s Systems of California, Inc. v.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Domenghini v. County of San Luis Obispo

    40 Cal. App. 3d 689 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1974

    Thus, in Mahoney v. … (Griffith v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Municipal Court v. Bloodgood

    137 Cal. App. 3d 29 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1982

    have control over budgetary matters, and this legislative function properly belongs to the board of supervisors (Hicks v. … In Board of Supervisors v. Krumm (1976) 62 Cal.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Jackson v. City of Los Angeles

    81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 814 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1999

    (Holcomb v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 1566 ; White v. County of Sacramento (1982) 31 Cal.3d 676, 683 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 646 P.2d 191 ].) … (Bag gett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 140 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874 ].)

    Cited 5 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.