Case law

Union Oil Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

211 Cal. 398 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1931

In Mailman v. … (See Associated Oil Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 191 Cal. 557 [ 217 Pac. 744 ].) In the instant case, however, *404 there was a definite compulsion upon the deceased to come on board that night.

Robinson v. Irish-American Benevolent Society

67 Cal. 135 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1885

The constitution of the society in terms. provides that the board of trustees shall examine all claims of members for sick allowance, and if found correct, order the same paid. … In this case, without even giving the board an opportunity to examine his claim, the plaintiff resorted to suit. (See Anacosta Tribe No. 12, Improved Order of Red Men v. Murbach, 13 Md. 91 ; 71 Am.

Sechrist v. Rialto Irrigation District

129 Cal. 640 · California Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1900

Such a case is Chase v. City Treasurer, etc., 122 Cal. 540 . (See, also, Devine v. Board of Supervisors, 121 Cal. 670 .) 4. … It was said in Hughson v.

Bank of Yolo v. Weaver

3 Cal. Unrep. 569 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1892

Such a corporation cannot receive the benefits and uses of an executed contract, and then deny its obligation: Main v. Casserly, 67 Cal. 129 , 7 Pac. 426 ; Bradley v. Ballard, 55 Ill. 413 ; Pixley v. … Dec. 623 ; Foulke v. Railroad Co., 51 Cal. 365 .

Hennessy v. State Bar

18 Cal. 2d 685 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1941

The Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommendation of the local administrative committee. … Both the committee and the Board of Governors properly took into consideration the past record and conduct of the petitioner. (Kennedy v. State Bar, 13 Cal. (2d) 236 [ 88 Pac. (2d) 920 ]; Petersen v.

Haight v. Marin Municipal Water District

208 Cal. 753 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1930

(Johnson v. Schimpf, 197 Cal. 43, 48 [ 239 Pac. 401 ].) The court found that all the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint were true. … Under our construction of the complaint and the issues, the so-called rule of consequential damages, commonly called the Baxendale rule (Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341), applied in Hunt Bros. v.

Adler v. City of Pasadena

57 Cal. 2d 609 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1962

Thus, in Tyro, v. Board of Police etc. … In Farrell v.

People v. Rogers

71 Cal. 565 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1887

(State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 319 ; People v. McOliver, 67 Cal. 56 .) … (State v. Watkins, 9 Conn. 54 .)

Lewis v. Colgan

5 Cal. Unrep. 373 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1896

Like considerations apply to similar acts by boards of supervisors, county commissioners and auditors: Colusa Co. v. De Jarnett, 55 Cal. 373 . … As was said in Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 350 : “It may appropriate [the public moneys] to claims which have no legal obligation, and are founded only in justice.

Pac. Elec. Ry. v. Rolkin

164 Cal. 154 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1912

A protest filed later has no effect, and does not require the state board to revise or alter its action in placing such property on the roll as operative property, or to dispose of the protest in any way.

Ventura County v. Clay

119 Cal. 213 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1897

(Ventura County v. Clay, supra.) … (Turner v. Caruthers, 17 Cal. 432 ; Clark v. Willett, 35 Cal. 534 ; Missouri v. Luce, 62 Fed. Rep. 419.)

Great Western Power Co. v. City of Oakland

196 Cal. 131 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1925

W. v. McFadden, 213 Mo. 269, 287 [ 111 S. W. 1172 ]; Grant v. Griffith, 40 App. Div. 18 [ 56 N. Y. Supp. 791 ]; Lorch v. Page, 97 Conn. 66 [24 A. L. R. 1204, 1209, 115 Atl. 681 ]; 19 Cor. … The cases cited by respondent (Bessolo v. City of Los Angeles, 176 Cal. 597 [ 169 Pac. 372 ]; Henne v. Los Angeles County, 129 Gal. 297 [ 61 Pac. 1081 ]; Weyse v.

Communist Party of United States of America v. Peek

20 Cal. 2d 536 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1942

(Spier v. Baker, supra, p. 375 ; Britton v. Board of Commrs., supra, p. 341.) … (Britton v. Board of Commrs., supra; Eaton v. Brown, 96 Cal. 371, 373 [ 31 Pac. 250 , 31 Am. St. Rep. 225 ,17 L. R. A. 697].)

Ashe v. Zemansky

192 Cal. 83 · California Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1923

The charter of the city and county of San Francisco nowhere expressly .authorizes, the use of voting machines, nor does it expressly confer jurisdiction upon the board of supervisors or the board of election commissioners … Taylor v. Board of Election Commrs., 54 Cal. 404 ; People v. Hoge, 55 Cal. 612 ; Gibbs v. Bartlett, 63 Cal. 117 ; San Francisco v. Broderick, 111 Cal. 302 [ 43 Pac. 960 ]).

Justesen's Food Stores, Inc. v. City of Tulare

12 Cal. 2d 324 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1938

(a Corporation), Appellant, v. CITY OF TULARE (a Municipal Corporation) et al., Respondents. L. A. No. 16060. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. November 14, 1938. Hugo McKinley and Joseph A. Brown for Appellant. … In Olds v.

Wood, Curtis & Co. v. El Dorado Lumber Co.

153 Cal. 230 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1908

So far, and no further, Macomber v. Bigelow went. … The case of Clark v. Brown, 141 Cal. 93 , [ 74 Pac. 548 ], relied upon by appellant, has not been overlooked. Clark v.

City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

11 Cal. 2d 395 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1938

Dist. *402 v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112 [17 Sup. Ct. 56, 41 L. Ed. 369 ]; Miller & Lux v. Board of Supervisors, 189 Cal. 254 [ 208 Pac. 304 ].) … (Board of Directors of Crawford County Levee Dist. v. Dunbar, 107 Ark. 285 [ 155 S. W. 96 ].)

Nesbitt v. Bolz

13 Cal. 2d 677 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1939

In Board of Commrs., etc., v. Wachovia Loan & Trust Co., 143 N. C. 110 [ 55 S. … We are unable to find any judicial decision which places the same construction upon the words ‘ entire board’ when the word ‘elected’ does not follow.” (See, also, People v.

People v. Davidson

79 Cal. 166 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1889

(Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 16 Pick. 175 ; 26 Am. Dec. 654 .) … (Craig v. People, 47 Ill. 487 .) This language is as applicable to toll-roads as plank roads, and we think it is a correct statement of the law.

People v. Eddie M.

3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 2003

Brown [(1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 452 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 391 ] (Brown)] and any other relevant provision of law.” (§ 777(c).) 7 n. … (Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 489 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ] (Morrissey); Brown, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d 452, 454-455 ; see, e.g., People v.