Case law

Melendez v. City of Los Angeles

8 Cal. 2d 741 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1937

The rule of Peters v. Bowman, supra, is followed in Polk v. Laurel Hill Cemetery Assn., 37 Cal. App. 624 [ 174 Pac. 414 ], and applied to the case of Beeson v. Los Angeles, 115 Cal. … As is said in Tavis v.

Coviello v. State Bar of California

41 Cal. 2d 273 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1953

(Goldstone v. State Bar, *277 214 Cal. 490, 497 [ 6 P.2d 513 ] ; Barbee v. State Bar, 213 Cal. 296, 299-300 [ 2 P.2d 353 ].) Petitioner contends that Mrs. … In view of the fact that petitioner has had no prior disciplinary record (see *279 Clark v.

Mitchell v. Patterson

120 Cal. 286 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1898

In July, 1892, the board of directors instructed the treasurer to open and keep five separate accounts, or funds, viz: Construction fund, bond fund, water fund, general fund, and contingent fund. … For a discussion and decision of that question by this court, see Welch v. Strother, 74 Cal. 413 , Lewis v. Widber, 99 Cal. 412 , and Hunt v. Broderick, 104 Cal. 313 .

Rider v. County of San Diego

1 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1991

Dist. v. … v.

Edson v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co.

144 Cal. 182 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1904

of railroad commissioners of this state, and has not been modified by said board. *186 “On said date defendant issued its circular 86 referred to in the complaint, hut said circular did not purport to modify or reduce the … Code, sec. 490; Robinson v. Southern Pacific Co., 105 Cal. 526 .)

Lake Tahoe Ry. & Transp. Co. v. Roberts

168 Cal. 551 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1914

Co. v. … Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 165 Cal. 564 , [ 132 Pac. 1044 ].)

Williams v. Bergin

127 Cal. 578 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1900

Co. v. Bolton, 97 Cal. 8 ). The complaint alleges that one C. B. … (California Improvement Co. v. Reynolds, 123 Cal. 88 .) It was not necessary that the superintendent of streets should fix in the contract the “day” upon which the work should commence. (Rauer v. Lowe, 107 Cal. 229 .)

Bodisco v. State Bar

58 Cal. 2d 495 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1962

(Block v. State Bar, 57 Cal.2d 219, 222 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 518 , 368 P.2d 118 ].) … The findings of the Board of Governors are, of course, not binding on the Supreme Court, which will weigh the evidence and pass upon its sufficiency. (Rock v.

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.

Abbott v. City of Los Angeles

50 Cal. 2d 438 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1958

In Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs. (1941), supra, 18 Cal.2d 427, 431-432 [7] (referring to Dryden v. … Board of Pen *458 sion Commrs. (1936), 6 Cal.2d 575 [ 59 P.2d 104 ] ; Hermanson v. Board of Pension Commrs. (1933), 219 Cal. 62 [ 28 P.2d 21 ]; Stamper v.

Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2004

14 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 (2004) 91 P.3d 162 RICO v. MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORP. No. S123808. Supreme Court of California. June 9, 2004. Petition for review granted. … GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Sherman v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y.

178 Cal. 286 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1918

(See Wood v. El Dorado Library Co., 153 Cal. 231 , [ 126 Am. St. Rep. 80 , 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 585, 94 Pac. 877 ]; Hall v. Cowen, 51 Wash. 295 , [ 98 Pac. 670 ]; Troy Public Works Co. v. City of Yonkers, 207 N. … In American Surety Co. v.

De Sepulveda v. Baugh

74 Cal. 468 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1887

This case seems very plainly to be within the rule laid down in Crosby v. Dowd, 61 Cal. 557 . … by deed executed so and so, or a line running north to the southern boundary of Brown’s land?

Branick v. DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN

28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2005

28 Cal.Rptr.3d 2 (2005) 110 P.3d 1217 BRANICK v. DOWNEY SAVINGS & LOAN. No. S132433. Supreme Court of California. April 27, 2005. Petition for review granted; issues limited Petition for review GRANTED. … GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

People ex rel. Webster v. Babcock

123 Cal. 307 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1899

Cases may be instanced, and indeed some are cited in People v. … Thus, in State v. Conrades, 45 Mo. 47 , the act under consideration provided: “If any officer in St.

Sierra Club v. County of Fresno

California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 2018

(City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2015) 61 Cal.4th 945, 967.) … Chatten-Brown & Carstens, Jan Chatten-Brown, Douglas P. Carstens and Amy C.

In Re Stanworth

33 Cal. 3d 176 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1982

In People v. … In Lindsey v.

Koebke v. BERNARDO HTS. COUNTRY CLUB

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 211 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2004

14 Cal.Rptr.3d 211 (2004) 91 P.3d 163 KOEBKE v. BERNARDO HTS. COUNTRY CLUB. No. S124179. Supreme Court of California. June 9, 2004. Petition for review granted. … GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ., concur.

O'Dea v. Cook

176 Cal. 659 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1917

From this judgment the board of trustees has appealed. … (United States v. Teller, 107 U. S. 64 , [ 27 L. Ed. 352 , 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 39]; Mahon v. Board of Education, 171 N. Y. 263 , [ 89 Am. St. Rep. 810 , 63 N„ E. 1107]; State v. Love, 89 Neb. 149 , [Ann.

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 .)