Case law

Nickels & Brown Bros. v. Buhman Bros.

142 Cal. 152 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1904

This is an appeal by Nickels & Brown Bros., a corporation, from an order confirming a sale of real and personal property to Buhman Bros., and comes here on a bill of exceptions. … Code, sec. 1741; Moss v. Atkinson, 44 Cal. 16 ; Browne on the Statute of Frauds, secs. 371 et seq.)

Brown v. Sharp-Hauser Contracting Co.

159 Cal. 89 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1910

There is nothing in Thompson v. California Const. … (People v. Cluff, 122 Cal. 589 , [ 55 Pac. 407 ].) In that case the advisability of not giving it at all in criminal cases is suggested. A similar suggestion is applicable to civil cases.

Brown v. San Francisco Savings Union

122 Cal. 648 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1898

The affidavits read on behalf of the plaintiff were made by Thomas Brown, plaintiff, and one David Brown. … Co. v. Modoc etc. Co., 108 Cal. 261 ; Bowers v. Modoc Land etc. Co., 117 Cal. 50 .) We advise that the order appealed from be affirmed.

Brown v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

63 Cal. 4th 335 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2016

Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 346-347; Brosnahan v. Brown, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 242-245, 247.) … (E.g., Manduley v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 574, 576; Brosnahan v. Brown, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 247-248.)

Reclamation Board v. Riley

208 Cal. 661 · California Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1930

Drainage Dist. v. … Johnson, 192 Cal. 211 [219 Pac. 442]; Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Riley, 194 Cal. 624 [ 229 Pac. 957 ]; Sacramento etc. Drainage Dist. v. Riley, supra; Reclamation Board v. Chambers, 46 Cal.

Brown v. Feather River Lumber Co.

203 Cal. 493 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1928

Co. v. Godfrey, 156 Ala. 202, 218 [ 130 Am. St. Rep. 76 , 47 South. 185 ] ; Brown v. Scarboro, 97 Ala. 316, 322, 323 [ 12 South. 289 ].) … The case of LeMasters v.

Brown v. Fresno Raisin Co.

101 Cal. 222 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1894

The plaintiff was a member of the firm of Brown and May, and there was evidence from which the court was justified in finding that the raisins delivered by the defendant to that firm were sold and delivered upon the individual … contract on his own account, and make himself alone liable, for the property bought for the copartnership if the vendor choose to accept such individual liability. (1 Bindley on Partnership, 2d Am. ed., 179-92; Sylvester v.

Mexican-American Political Association v. Brown

8 Cal. 3d 733 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1973

(Roma Macaroni Factory v. Giambastiani, 219 Cal. 435, 437 [ 27 P.2d 371 ].)

Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court

47 Cal. 4th 1233 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2010

In Palma v. U.S. … (Compare Kernes v.

Connerly v. State Personnel Board

39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 788 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2006

(See, e.g., Choudhry v. … In Washburn v.

Rose v. Superior Court

19 Cal. 3d 899 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1977

(See County of Marin v. Martin (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 1, 3-4 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 364 ]; County of Contra Costa v. Social Welfare Board (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 468, 473 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 573 ]; cf. Ramos v. … (See Eve Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 543-544 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 21 , 432 P.2d 717 ].)

Brown v. Central Pacific Railroad Co.

68 Cal. 171 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1885

Kennedy v. Board of Education

82 Cal. 483 · California Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1890

(People v. Van Siclen, 50 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 537.) The object being to restore her to a right given her by law, mandamus is the proper remedy. … (People v. Henshaw, 76 Cal. 436 ; Ex parte Ah You, ante, p. 339.) *493 The fact that some one else has been placed in the position to which the respondent is entitled cannot affect her right to maintain this action.

Hagar v. Board of Supervisors

47 Cal. 222 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

(People v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 Comst. 419; Emery v. S. F. Gas Co., 28 Cal. 345 ; Sears v. Cottrell, 5 Mich. 251 ; Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Imp. Co., 18 How. U. S. 272.) … (Burnett v. Mayor of Sacramento, 12 Cal. 76 ; Emery v. S. F. Gas Co., supra, and cases there cited; Egyptian Levee Co. v. Hardin, 27 Mo. 495 ; Yeatman v. Crandall, 11 La. An. 220; Wallace v. Shelton, 14 La. An. 498.)

Bowers v. Board of Supervisors

32 Cal. 66 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

.: This is a petition for a mandamus commanding the defend-, ant Board to contract with Bowers for the completion and publication of á certain map of the County of Sonoma. The petition was démurred to. … Though the body of the Act, so far as the mere letter is concerned, is mandatory, still we are satisfied that it was not the intention of the Legislature to compel the Board of Supervisors outright “ to contract ” for a map

Miller v. Board of Supervisors

25 Cal. 93 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

(Tyler v. Houghton, 25 Cal. 26 .) II. … In the matter of the approval or disapproval of the bond, the Board exercises judicial functions. (Robinson v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento, 16 Cal. 208 , and cases therein cited; People v.

Hancock v. Board of Education

140 Cal. 554 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1903

(Kennedy v. Miller, 97 Cal. 434; Board of Education v. Board of Trustees, 129 Cal. 606 .) … (Stone v. Bancroft, 112 Cal. 652 ; Stone v. Ban *563 croft, 139 Cal. 78 .)

Quinchard v. Board of Trustees

113 Cal. 664 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1896

(People v. Oakland Board of Education, 54 Cal. 375 .) … (People v. Walter, 68 N. Y. 403 ; People v. Board of Commrs., 97 N. Y. 37 ; In re Wilson, 32 Minn. 145 .)

Saxton v. Board of Education

206 Cal. 758 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1929

Board of Education, 82 Cal. 483 [ 22 Pac. 1042 ]; Fairchild v. Board of Education, 107 Cal. 92 [40 Pae. 26]; Barthel v. Board of Education, 153 Cal. 376 [ 95 Pac. 892 ]; Blalock v. Ridgway et al., 92 Cal. … Board of Police Commrs., 47 Cal. App. 29 [ 190 Pac. 51 ], Loehr v. Board of Education, 12 Cal. App. 671 [ 80 Pac. 684 ], and Ross v. Board of Education, 18 Cal. App. 222 [ 122 Pac. 967 ]). The case of Kennedy v.

People v. Board of Supervisors

45 Cal. 395 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

It is ordered that the following question of fact be tried: Was the petition (alleged in the application for the writ to have been presented to the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County) signed by as many as thirteen hundred … And it is further ordered, that the said District Court, upon the application of either party, by subpoena duces te cum, or appropriate order, cause the original petition, and such other records of the Board of Supervisors