Case law

McColgan v. Jones, Hubbard & Donnell, Inc.

11 Cal. 2d 243 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1938

(Brown v. Sterling Furniture Co., 175 Cal. 563 [ 166 Pac. 322 ]; Commins v. Guaranty Oil Co., 29 Cal. App. 139 [154 Pac. 882]; Henry v. Lingsweiler, 81 Cal. App. 143 [ 253 Pac. 357 ]; Bengel v. Traeger, 100 Cal. … (See, also, the orders in Bengel v. Traeger, supra; Brown v. Sterling Furniture Co., supra; Finch v. Ekstrom, supra.) In Ferris v.

Cooper v. Chamberlin

78 Cal. 450 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1889

Afterward the board of supervisors of said county, sitting as a board of equalization, attempted to increase the valuation of said property, and did in form increase the same, by the sum of $20,972.98, making the total valuation … (Wills v. Austin, 53 Cal. 152 ; Bucknall v. Story, 46 Cal. 589 ; 13 Am. Rep. 220 ; De Baker v. Carillo, 52 Cal. 473 ; Brumagim v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 265 .)

Carpenter v. Pacific Coast Ins. Assn.

10 Cal. 2d 304 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1937

On this issue the case is governed by Carpenter v. Peoples Mutual Life Ins. Co., recently decided by this court {ante, p. 299 [ 74 Pac. (2d) 508 ]). … Code, see. 3664b), and is an obligation of the taxpayer irrespective of the assessment thereof by the board.

County of Riverside v. Palm-Ramon Development Co.

63 Cal. 2d 534 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1965

As declared in De Luz Homes, Inc. v. … Co. v.

Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Chambers

169 Cal. 131 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1915

(Sharp v. Contra Costa Co., 34 Cal. 291 ; Smith v. Broderick, 107 Cal. 650 , [ 48 Am. St. Rep. 167 , 40 Pac. 1033 ]; Gilman v. Contra Costa Co., 8 Cal. 57 , [ 68 Am. Dec. 290 and note, p. 297]; Emeric v. … . *136 Dec. 742]; People v. San Joaquin etc. Assoc., 151 Cal. 806 , [ 91 Pac. 740 ].)

Wills v. Austin

53 Cal. 152 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1878

That section was under review by this Court in the case of Houghton v. … The rule applicable to this point is forcibly stated by Chief Justice Shaw in Warren v.

Perry v. Angelus Hospital Association

172 Cal. 311 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1916

In front of these rollers there was a flat polished board leading up nearly to the point of contact of the upper and lower rollers, upon which board the articles to be ironed were placed. … Bank v. Pacific Ry. Co., 115 Cal. 285 , 297, [ 47 P. 601 ; Gervaise v. Brookins, 156 Cal. 112 , [ 103 P. 332 ].) The instruction is correct.

Kennedy v. City of Gustine

199 Cal. 251 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1926

(Coulter v. Pool, 187 Cal. 181, 186 [ 201 Pac. 120, 123 ]; Logan v. Shields, 190 Cal. 661, 662 [ 214 Pac. 45 ] ; Curtin v. State of California, 61 Cal. App. 377, 390 [ 214 Pac. 1030 ].) … In overruling a like objection in Johnson v.

Crane v. Derrick

157 Cal. 667 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1910

In Moulin v. … (Murdock v. Murdock, 7 Cal. 513 ; Friermuth v. Friermuth, 46 Cal. 42 .) And it is emphatically declared in Murdock v.

Carter v. Meuli

122 Cal. 367 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1898

In Blood v. Wood, 95 Cal. 86 , it was held that the board could not authorize an individual to collect tolls on a public highway. It is argued that the mode pursued here was a mere evasion. … (Wood v. Truckee, 24 Cal. 474 ; People v. Duncan, 41 Cal. 511 ; Visalia v. Sims, 104 Cal. 328 .) We find, however, that after the assignment the board of supervisors recognized the assignment and required Mrs.

Tuohy v. Chase

30 Cal. 524 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1866

.: It is provided in the second section of the Act “to create a Board of Supervisors in the counties of this State and to define their duties and powers,” passed March 20th, 1855, (Acts of 1855, p. 51,) that “ the Board of … (People *527 v. Allen, 6 Wend. 486 ; People v. Peck, 11 Wend. 604 ; Merchant v. Langworthy, 6 Hill, 645 ; Ex parte Heath v. Roome, 3 Hill, 42 .) Judgment affirmed.

Welsh v. County of Plumas

80 Cal. 338 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1889

(Rush v. Jackson, 24 Cal. 308 .) … Proc., sec. 731; Conniff v. San Francisco, 67 Cal. 45 .)

Robinson v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

2 Cal. 4th 226 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1992

(Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 485 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 691 P.2d 272 ].) … It has been applied when the government has misled a claimant (see Lerner v. Board of Education (1963) 59 Cal.2d 382 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 380 P.2d 97 ]; Tyra v. Board of Police etc.

Ramirez v. CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INCORPORATED

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 199 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2000

101 Cal.Rptr.2d 199 (2000) 11 P.3d 955 Robert RAMIREZ, III, Respondent, v. CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INCORPORATED, Appellant. No. S085000. Supreme Court of California. October 18, 2000. … GEORGE, C.J., MOSK, J., KENNARD, J., BAXTER, J., WERDEGAR, J., CHIN, J., and BROWN, J., concur.

Russ Building Partnership v. City & County of San Francisco

44 Cal. 3d 839 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1988

Improvement Dist. v. Board of Supervisors (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 545, 552 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 391 ].) … Rules of Court, rule 976(d); see Agricultural Labor Relations Board v.

White v. County of San Diego

26 Cal. 3d 897 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1980

Words in Allen v. … Harrison v.

Canales v. City of Alviso

3 Cal. 3d 118 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1970

(Simpson v. … Cipriano v.

Millard v. County of Kern

147 Cal. 682 · California Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1905

It appears that the claim was wholly rejected on its first and only presentation to the board. It was therefore unnecessary to present it again. (San Diego v. Riverside, 125 Cal. 499 , [ 58 Pac. 81 ].) 2. … The late case of Tucker v.

Carter v. City of Los Angeles

31 Cal. 2d 341 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1948

That contention is made for the first time on the present appeal and is based on the decisions in Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners, 26 Cal.2d 716 [ 160 P.2d 816 ], decided in June, 1945, and Tennant v. … (See *350 Livingstone v. MacGillivray, 1 Cal.2d 546, 553 [ 36 P.2d 622 ].) Inquiry into extraneous facts merely to determine motive would not be proper. (Kennedy v. State Personnel Board, 6 Cal.2d 340 [ 57 P.2d 486 ].)

Fickert v. J. H. Zemansky

176 Cal. 443 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1917

In Whitney v. … Co. v. Board of Equalization, 43 Cal. 365 ; People v. Burney, 29 Cal. 459 ; Morley v. Elkins, 37 Cal. 457 ; Central Pac. R. R. Co. v.