Case law

Bennett v. Bennett

219 Cal. 153 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1933

(Everett v. Everett, 52 Cal. 383; Ex parte Spencer, 83 Cal. 460 [ 23 Pac. 395 , 17 Am. St. Rep. 266 ]; Lampson v. Lampson, 171 Cal. 332 [ 153 Pac. 238 ]; In re McKenna, 116 Cal. App. 232 [2 Pac. (2d) 429]; Johnson v. … (Parker v. Parker, 55 Cal. App. 458 [ 203 Pac. 420 ]; Johnson v. Johnson, supra.)

Cottle v. Spitzer

65 Cal. 456 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1884

(Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 444 ; 24 How. 123 ; 15 Pa. St. 353.) … This was expressly so decided in Wells, Fargo & Co. v. The State Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 197 , and is the course certain to be pursued.

Albonico v. Madera Irrigation District

47 Cal. 2d 695 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1957

Dist. v. All Persons, ante, p. 681 [ 306 P.2d 886 ]. … Dist. v. All Parties, ante, p. 597 [ 306 P.2d 824 ], and in Madera Irr. Dist. v.

Pockman v. Leonard

39 Cal. 2d 676 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1952

(See Garner v. Los Angeles Board, 341 U.S. 716, 720 [ 71 S.Ct. 909 , 95 L.Ed. 1317 ]; Adler v. Board of *686 Education of City of New York, 342 U.S. 485 [ 72 S.Ct. 380, 385 , 96 L.Ed. 517 ].) … Board of Education of the City of New York, 342 U.S. 485 [ 72 S.Ct. 380 , 96 L.Ed. 517 ]; Garner v. Los Angeles Board, 341 U.S. 716 [ 71 S.Ct. 909 , 95 L.Ed. 1317 ]; Gerende v.

Stanwood v. Carson

169 Cal. 640 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1915

(State v. Hobolken, 44 N. J. L. 131; Ricketts v. Hyde Park, 85 Ill. 111 ; Brown’s Estate v. *648 West Seattle, 43 Wash. 26 , [ 85 Pac. 854 ]; Hinchman v. Barnes, 21 Mich. 558 ; Greenlee v. Marks, 62 Ind. 420 ; Hart v. … This award did not contain the approval of the president of the board. But having been made by three-fourths of the board of trustees the approval of the president was not necessary. (McDonald v.

Continental Securities & Investment Co. v. Rawson

208 Cal. 228 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1929

In Minifie v. … (Wise Realty Co. v. Stewart, 169 Cal. 176 [ 146 Pac. 534 ]; Shorb v. Beaudry, 56 Cal. 446 ; 6 Cal. Jur., p. 595.)

County of Imperial v. McDougal

19 Cal. 3d 505 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1977

Such permits run with the land (Cohn v. County Board of Supervisors (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 180, 184 [ 286 P.2d 836 ]), and McDougal succeeded to any benefits which Simpson enjoyed under the permit issued to him. … Corp. v. Indus. Acc. Com. (1918) 177 Cal. 767, 771 [ 171 P. 935 ]; Prince v. Hill (1915) 170 Cal. 192, 195 [ 149 P. 587 ]; People ex rel. Dept, of Public Works v.

In re Allen

59 Cal. 2d 5 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1962

Cook, 215 Ark. 72 [ 220 *7 S.W.2d 433, 437 ] ; State v. Wiley, 232 Iowa 443 [ 3 N.W.2d 620, 624 ] ; Adams v. Antonio (Tex.Civ.App.) 88 S.W.2d 503, 505 ; cf. Brown v. … Board of Police Comrs., 58 Cal.App.2d 473, 479 [ 136 P.2d 617 ].)

Wilson v. Eu

54 Cal. 3d 546 · California Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1991

(Wilson v. … Brown, retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, the Honorable Rafael H.

Hawley v. Reclamation Dist. No. 730

220 Cal. 271 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1934

(Reclamation Dist. 108 v. Evans, 61 Cal. 104 .) In Richardson v. Browning, 61 Cal. … (Reclamation Dist. 108 v. West, supra.)

Doyle v. State Bar

15 Cal. 3d 973 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976

out in the findings of the board are “fairly stated,” and properly subject him to discipline. … (Browne v. State Bar (1955) 45 Cal.2d 165, 170 [ 287 P.2d 745 ].)

Kasler v. Lockyer

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 334 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2000

Opinion BROWN, J. … (McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 809 [ 89 S.Ct. 1404, 1409 , 22 L.Ed.2d 739 ].) In Minnesota v.

Chandler v. Hart

161 Cal. 405 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1911

No. 5849]; Funk v. Haldeman, 53 Pa. St. 229; Harlow v. Lake Superior I. Co., 36 Mich. 104 ; Smith v. Cooley, 65 Cal. 46 , [ 2 Pac. 880 ]; Hughes v. Devlin, 23 Cal. 502 ; Hall v. Vernon, 47 W. Va. 297 , [ 81 Am. St. … (Underhill v. Santa Barbara etc. Co., 93 Cal. 314 , [ 28 Pac. 1049 ]; Colton L. & W. Co. v. Swartz, 99 Cal. 284 , [ 33 Pac. 878 ]; Burnett v. Lyford, 93 Cal. 117 , [ 28 Pac. 855 ]; Mills v. Boyle M.

Reinert v. California Almond Growers Exchange

9 Cal. 2d 181 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1937

(Johnson v. Staple Cotton Coop. Assn., 142 Miss. 312 [ 107 So. 2 ]; Arkansas Cotton Growers’ Coop. Assn. v. Brown, 168 Ark. 504 [ 270 S. W. 946 , 1119]; Rhodes v. Little Falls Dairy Co., 230 App. Div. 571 [ 245 N. Y. … To meet these charges the board of directors is authorized by the by-laws “To appropriate out of the proceeds of each year’s crop in any year and in every year, when the same may be thought necessary or proper by said Board

Talcott v. Blanding

54 Cal. 289 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

Washington v. Nichols, 62 N. Y. 478 , the common-law principle on this subject is stated. … (Green v. Miller, 6 T. R. 39.) The same principle was recognized by the Court of King’s Bench in the case of The King v. Beeston, 3 T.

Marshall v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.

2 Cal. 4th 1045 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1992

Co. v. … (Donovan v. Dillingham, supra, 688 F.2d 1367 , 1373 [en banc]; see also Brown v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. (6th Cir. 1989) 876 F.2d 546, 551 [adopting Dillingham test]; Ed Miniat, Inc. v. Globe Life Ins.

Wilson v. Fisher

148 Cal. 13 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1905

sitting as a canvassing board. … In Anderson v.

Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses Ass'n

32 Cal. 2d 833 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1948

(Pomeroy, Code Remedies (5th ed.), § 290, p. 441, and cases there cited; see, also, Colt v. Hicks, 97 Ind.App. 177 [ 179 N.E. 335, 341 ]; Board of Com'rs of Vanderburgh County v. … (Carey v. Brown, 58 Cal. 180 ; Ballin v.

People v. Miles

56 Cal. 401 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

(Raymond v. State 54 Miss. 562 ; Chev allier v. State, 10 Tex. 315 ; United States v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 484 , et mult. als.) The cases cited by the respondent do not sustain his position. United States v.

Stevens v. S. F. & North Pac. R.R. Co.

100 Cal. 554 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1893

(Congrave v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 88 Cal. 360 ; Yeomans v. Contra Costa S. N. Co., 44 Cal. 71 ; Hagan v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 49 Cal. 128 ; McDonald v. Hazletine, 53 Cal. 35 ; Brown v. Central Pac. R. R. … Co., 72 Cal. 523 ; Fagundes v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 79 Cal. 97 ; Stephens v. Doe, 73 Cal. 26 .) The case of Brown v. Sennett, relied upon by appellant, was commented upon in Congrave v. Southern Pac. R. R.