Case law

People v. Ritchie

17 Cal. App. 3d 1098 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1971

(People v. Curtiss, supra, 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126.) They are set up in People v. … (People v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d 672, 678 ; People v. Beasley, supra, 5 Cal.App.3d 617, 637 ; People v.

Edwards v. Edwards

90 Cal. App. 2d 33 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1949

In Swanson v. … (Koyer v. Willmon, 150 Cal. 785, 787 [ 90 P. 135 ].) McMillen v.

Megee v. Fasulis

65 Cal. App. 2d 94 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1944

(Citing Brown v. Regan, 10 Cal.2d 519, 524 [ 75 P.2d 1063 ]; Redo Y Cia v. First National Bank, 200 Cal. 161, 166 [ 252 P. 587 ].) It also was held in Pray v. … (Schmidt v. Bauer, 80 Cal. 565 [ 22 P. 256 , 5 L.R.A. 580 ]; Means v. Southern California Ry. Co., 144 Cal. 473 [ 77 P. 1001 , 1 Ann.Cas. 206] ; Goldstein v. Healy, 187 Cal. 206 [ 201 P. 462 ]; Brinkworth v.

Continental Insurance v. Columbus Line, Inc.

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 199 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 2003

Before being loaded on board defendant’s ship, the mast was damaged. The damage was so severe that the mast could not be loaded on defendant’s ship and carried to New Zealand. … .); Wuerttembergische v. M/V Stuttgart Express (5th Cir. 1983) 711 F.2d 621, 622 ; Brown & Root, Inc. v. M/V Peisander (5th Cir. 1981) 648 F.2d 415, 420 .)

Hiller v. City of Los Angeles

197 Cal. App. 2d 685 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1961

In one of them, City of Cleveland v. … The other case, McGuire v.

Aetna Indemnity Co. v. Altadena Mining & Investment Co.

11 Cal. App. 165 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1909

In Breeze v. … Works v. Smith, supra, Mr.

People v. Delgado

California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2018

Brown heard the shooting but claimed not to have seen it. Later, defendant told Brown he thought Cannon was preparing to shoot and defendant shot him to protect Brown. … v.

Olson v. Arnett

113 Cal. App. 3d 59 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 1980

Rptr. 821 , 381 P.2d 645 ]; Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz (1976) 57 Cal. App.3d 104, 112 [ 128 Cal. … Interest v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 76 Cal. App.3d 241, 246, fn. 3 [ 142 Cal. Rptr. 766 ]; Metzger v. Silverman (1976) 62 Cal. App.3d Supp. 30, 37 [ 133 Cal.

Mitri v. Arnel Management Co.

69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 223 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2007

Brown & Root, Inc., established in and of itself the employer’s dispute resolution program, and did not include an express requirement that its employees sign an arbitration agreement. Therefore, Craig v. … Brown & Root, Inc., is inapposite.

Rideout v. Eich

100 Cal. App. 135 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1929

Basing his argument upon the cases of City and County of San Francisco v. Boyle, 195 Cal. 426 [ 233 Pac. 965 ], and Mahoney v. … San Diego Water Co., 118 Cal. 524 [ 45 Pac. 824 , 50 Pac. 670 ], and Higgins v.

Van Wagener v. MacFarland

58 Cal. App. 115 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 1922

(Board of Education v. Board of Trustees, 129 Cal. 599 [ 62 Pac. 173 ].) … Board of Supervisors, 41 Mich. 647 [ 2 N. W. 904 ]; People ex rel. Quisenberry v. Ellis, 253 Ill. 369 [Ann. Cas. 1913A, 589, 97 N. E. 697 ]; Blackwell v. Newkirk, 31 Okl. 304 [Ann.

People v. Jefferson

230 Cal. App. 2d 151 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 1964

When appellant Jefferson answered the questions, the officer noticed a brown paper cigarette in his mouth and a brown leafy substance adhering to his lips. The officer believed it was a narcotic. … In Silverman v.

People v. Plywood Mfrs. of Cal.

137 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 859 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1955

Again we find the restrictive words in Cantrell v. Board of Supervisors (1948), 87 Cal.App.2d 471, 477 [ 197 P.2d 218, 222 ]: "Courts may take judicial knowledge of scientific facts which are commonly recognized." … Sulphur Compounds calculated as sulphur dioxides (SO2): 0.2 per cent, by volume." [29] We are of the opinion that an air pollution board may not, and by its adoption of rule 53 the Los Angeles board did not attempt to, exempt

Kleefeld v. Superior Court

25 Cal. App. 4th 1680 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1994

(Gutierrez v. Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 896 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 705 P.2d 886 ].) Plaintiff calls our attention to the case of Steingart v. White (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 406 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 678 ]. … (Steingart v. White, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d at pp. 414-415.)

Mason v. Superior Court

121 Cal. App. 3d 876 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1981

Other cases holding that law enforcement officers must turn over seized property to the Franchise Tax Board on demand are People v. Freeny (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 20, 30 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 33 ] and Franchise *883 Tax Board v. … (Kanarek v. Davidson, supra, 85 Cal.App.3d 341, 345, fn. 4 .)

Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. v. County of Kern

44 Cal. App. 4th 346 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1996

In Cerini v. … Although significantly distinct from the present case because the lawsuit was brought by a board member against the very board on which she sat, certain observations from Carsten v.

Douglass v. Douglass

130 Cal. App. 2d 609 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 1955

(Mondine v. Sarlin, 11 Cal.2d 593, 597 [ 81 P.2d 903 ].) … (Terrell v. Key System, 69 Cal.App.2d 682, 689-690 [ 159 P.2d 704 ]; Dwelly v. McReynolds, 6 Cal.2d 128,133 [ 56 P.2d 1232 ].)

Responsible Citizens v. SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO CTY.

16 Cal. App. 4th 1717 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1993

Hutton & Company v. Brown (S.D.Tex. 1969) 305 F.Supp. 371, 394 , fns. omitted; see also Industrial Indem. Co. v. Great American Ins. … Hutton & Company v. Brown, supra, 305 F.Supp. at pp. 393-394; Developments in the Law—Conflicts of Interest in the Legal Profession (1981) 94 Harv.L.Rev. 1244, 1292-1315.)

Anaheim City School District v. County of Orange

164 Cal. App. 3d 697 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1985

(Garden Grove Sanitary Dist. v. County of Orange, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d 842, 849 .) … (Regents of University of California v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 547, 549 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 925 ].) Appellants’ premise is correct; their conclusion is not. In County of Riverside v.

People v. Parish

59 Cal. App. 302 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1922

(People v. Jordan, 172 Cal. 399 [ 156 Pac. 451 ].) … L. 782; People v. Tapia, 131 Cal. 647 [ 63 Pac. 1001 ]; People v. Thompson, 115 Cal. 160 [ 46 Pac. 912 ].)