Case law

People v. Dunn

89 Cal. 228 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1891

” (adding a proviso not material to the present purposes). , In San Luis Obispo v. … It follows from these facts, and the decision in the case of San Luis Obispo v.

Eichman v. Escondido Union High School District

61 Cal. 2d 100 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1964

In Griggs v. … (See Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners, 32 Cal.2d 301, 304 [ 196 P.2d 20 ].)

Jankey v. Song Koo Lee

55 Cal. 4th 1038 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2012

Levine 10 (2009) 555 U.S. 555, 565; Brown v. Mortensen, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 1059- 1060.) … (Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (1996) 518 U.S. 470, 485; accord, Brown, at p. 1060.)

Bd. of Educ. of S.F. v. Hyatt

152 Cal. 515 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1907

(Nevada School District v. Shoecraft, 88 Cal. 372 , [ 26 Pac. 211 ].) … (See, also, Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 , [ 89 Pac. 352 ].)

Nevada Bank v. Steinmitz

64 Cal. 301 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1882

The case of Patterson v. … (Barnes v. Perine, 9 Barb. 211 ; Robertson v. March, 3 Scam. 198 ; Chitty on Contracts, 64; Train v. Gold, 5 Pick. 379 ; White v. Baxter, 71 N. Y. 254 .)

Walker v. City of San Gabriel

20 Cal. 2d 879 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1942

In Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U. S. 197 [ 59 S. Ct. 206 , 83 L. … Com., 195 Cal. 174 [ 231 Pac. 996 ] ; Smith v. Board of Police Commissioners, 1 Cal. App. (2d) 292 [ 35 P. (2d) 555 , 36 P. (2d) 670 ]; Dyment v. Board of Medical Exam *882 iners, 93 Cal.

Congrave v. Southern Pacific Railroad

88 Cal. 360 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1891

Other cases to the same point are Collier v. Steinhart, 51 Cal. 116 ; McLean v. Blue Point G. M. Co., 51 Cal. 256 ; McDonald v. Hazle *366 tine, 53 Cal. 35 ; Brown v. C. P. R. R. Co., 72 Cal. 523 ; Fagundes v. C. P. R. … The same doctrine was announced in Brown v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 72 Cal. 523 , and Fagundes v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 79 Cal. 97 .

Mark v. Superior Court

129 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1900

As stated in Dewey v. … And in Schwarz v.

Dougherty v. Rosenberg

62 Cal. 32 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1882

V. B. Henarie for the enforcement of certain assessment liens against each of three several lots of land owned by said persons respectively. … (Browne on the Statute of Frauds, 279.)

Henne v. County of Los Angeles

129 Cal. 297 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1900

Still, as was held in People v. Board of Supervisors, 77 Cal. 136 , the value of such security should be deducted from the total value of the property. … As was said in Osborn v. Danvers, 6 Pick. 98 : “But great mischiefs would follow if we were to hold that an excess of valuation would render an assessment illegal and void.

Stenocord Corp. v. City & County of San Francisco

2 Cal. 3d 984 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1970

V. … Foster Co. v.

People's Lumber Co. v. Gillard

136 Cal. 55 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1902

(Kiessig v. Allspaugh, 99 Cal. 452 ; Summerton v. Hanson, 117 Cal. 252 , and cases cited.) The reasons which led to the conclusion in the above cases would seem to apply here. (See, also, Union Sheet and Metal Works v. … Defendants claim that this was error (citing Victor Sewing Machine Co. v. Scheffler, 61 Cal. 530 ; Daley v. Russ, 86 Cal. 114 ).

People v. Associated Oil Co.

211 Cal. 93 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1930

(Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U. S. 603 [53 A. L. R. 1210, 71 L. Ed. 1228 , 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 675] ; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, supra; Levy Leasing Co. Inc. v. Seigel, 258 U. S. 242 [ 66 L. Ed. 595 , 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289].) … The rule universally adopted, except in Montana, is expressed in Brown v. Spillman, 155 U. S. 665 [ 39 L. Ed. 304 , 15 Sup. Ct.

Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek

52 Cal. 3d 531 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1990

Proc., § 1859; Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 744, 764 [ 799 P.2d 1220 ]; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) … (deBottari v. City Council, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1212 ; Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704 .) The court does not invalidate the ordinance.

People v. Burton

48 Cal. 3d 843 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1989

(See People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 454.) … (See People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448 [ 250 Cal. Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].) 2.

In Re Dunham

16 Cal. 3d 63 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1976

(People v. … {Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. 471 .)

Municipal Improvement Co. v. Thompson

201 Cal. 629 · California Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1927

On October 15th the board of supervisors proceeded to hear such objections as were offered against the work, including those of the defendants other than the defendant chairman of said board, and on the same day the board … Crowley, 31 Cal. 471, 474 ; Mahoney v. Braverman, 54 Cal. 565, 568 ; Clute v. Turner, 157 Cal. 73, 81 [ 106 Pac. 240 ]; Thomas v. Pridham, supra; Swall v. County of Los Angeles, supra).

Holley v. County of Orange

106 Cal. 420 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1895

(People v. Provines, 34 Cal. 520 .) It does not follow, however, that the authority conferred upon the board of supervisors by statute can be delegated to others. … (Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 204; Scollay v. County of Butte, 67 Cal. 249 ; Abrams v. Ervin, 9 Iowa, 87 ; Page v. Hardin, 8 B. Mon. 662 ; Lewis v. Lewis, 9 Mo. 182 ; 43 Am. Dec. 540 ; (People v.

Hornblower v. Duden

35 Cal. 664 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

The power of the Board cannot, as we consider, be measured by such a rule. … The point as to the power of the Board to employ other counsel than the District Attorney, is answered by the case of Smith v. The Mayor of Sacramento, 13 Cal. 533 , and nothing need be added to what is there said.

English v. Olympic Auditorium, Inc.

217 Cal. 631 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1933

Brown, 165 Cal. 193, 200 [ 131 Pac. 368, 370 ], says: ‘But the primary thing is the lien upon the building. … (Myers v. Joseph A. Strowbridge Estate Co., 82 Or. 29 [ 160 Pac. 135 ]; Oregon Lumber etc. Co. v. Nolan, 75 Or. 69 [ 143 Pac. 935 , 146 Pac. 474 ] ; Denniston etc. Co. v. Brown, 183 Iowa, 398 [ 167 N. W. 190 ]; Loeff v.