Case law

El Dorado County v. Davison

30 Cal. 520 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1866

Leasing of highway by Board of Supervisors. … Bank v. Owens, 2 Peters, 538 .)

Finch v. Riverside & Arlington Railway

87 Cal. 597 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1891

It is contended that the defendant could not use the street for the purposes of its track without first making compensation to the plaintiff, and the case of Weyl v. Sonoma Valley R. R. Co., 69 Cal. 203 , is cited. … For example, there may already be a track there under a franchise which it is beyond the power of the board to revoke.

Palo Verde Irrigation District v. Warmington

195 Cal. 16 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1924

(Barber v. Galloway, ante, p. 1 [ 231 Pac. 34 ].) … (Gage v. McCord, 5 Ariz. 227 [ 51 Pac. 977 ] ; Yesler v. City of Seattle, 1 Wash. 308 [ 25 Pac. 1014 ] ; Coler v. Cleburne, 131 U. S. 162 [ 33 L. Ed. 146 , 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 720, see, also, Rose’s U. S.

People v. Calhoun

50 Cal. 2d 137 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1958

(People v. Gilbert, 26 Cal.App.2d 1, 26 [ 78 P.2d 770 ].) … (People v. Steccone, 36 Cal.2d 234, 237 [2, 3] [ 223 P.2d 17 ] ; People v. Lyon, 135 Cal.App.2d 558, 578 [5] [ 288 P.2d 57 ]; People v. Chait, 69 Cal.App.2d 503, 515 [10] [ 159 P.2d 445 ] ; People v.

Hunt v. Waterman

12 Cal. 301 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1859

Brown v. Gilman, 4 Wheat. 290 ; 1 Mason, 212 ; Fisk v. Howland, 1 Paige Ch. R. 20, where the authorities, English and American, are fully reviewed. … The case of Boos v. Ewing, (17 Ohio, 521) cited by respondent, seems to be the other way, and is noticed by the editor as a case opposed to the general current of decision.

KRISTINE v. Lisa

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 668 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 2004

(KRISTINE Renee) v. R. (LISA Ann). No. S126945. Supreme Court of California. September 1, 2004. Petition for review granted. GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Reed v. Norman

48 Cal. 2d 338 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1957

Smith v. … Code, $ 834; Hogan v.

Watenpaugh v. State Teachers' Retirement

51 Cal. 2d 675 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1959

(Zainudin v. … Language in Wicktor v. County of Los Angeles, 141 Cal.App.2d 592 , 596 et seq. [ 297 P.2d 115 ], Nichols v. Board of Retirement, 121 Cal.App.2d 176, 180 [ 262 P.2d 862 ], and Shaw v.

Ostrander v. City of Richmond

155 Cal. 468 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1909

(Galena v. Amy, 72 U. S. (5 Wall.) 705 ; Village of Kent v. United States ex rel. Dana, 113 Fed. 232 ; State v. Board of Commissioners of Buffalo Co., 6 Neb. 454 ; People v. Board of Supervisors of Otsego Co., 51 N. … Y. 401 ; People v. Board of Commissioners of Rio Grande Co., 7 Colo. App. 229 , [ 42 Pac. 1032 ].) Examining the statute before us, we find no special reason for the construction which appellant desires.

People v. Coleman

4 Cal. 46 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1854

In support of this proposition, the ease of Brown v. … The argument of the Court in the case of Brown v.

Seller v. Market-Street Railway Co.

139 Cal. 268 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1903

(See Herbert v. Southern Pacific Co., 121 Cal. 227 ; Fox v. Oakland Consolidated St. Ry. Co., 118 Cal. 61 ; 1 Mc-Kune v. Santa Clara Valley M. & L. Co., 110 Cal. 484 .) … In Holloway v. Pasadena etc. Ry.

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 ].)

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.

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.

Tarpey v. McClure

190 Cal. 593 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1923

(Wheeler v. Herbert, 152 Cal. 224, 232 [ 92 Pac. 353, 357 ]. See, also, Martinelli v. Morrow, 172 Cal. 472 [ 156 Pac. 1017 ]; Board of Directors v. Peterson, 64 Or. 46 [ 129 Pac. 123 ].) … it has attempted to create a court, and that this board is called upon to exercise judicial powers, are well answered by what was said by this court in People v.

Patterson v. Munyan

93 Cal. 128 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1892

(Babcock v. Welsh, 71 Cal. 402 ; Pol. Code, secs. 2219-2621.) … (Babcock v. Welsh, 71 Cal. 403 .) And he became guilty of the trespass complained of.

Continental National Bank of Los Angeles v. Republic Casualty Co.

202 Cal. 586 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1927

We are unable to distinguish between this case and the case of Stone v. Shackelford, 64 Cal. … The cases of Pacific Wood & Coal Co. v. Oswald, 179 Cal. 712 [ 178 Pac. 854 ], and Sherman 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.

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.

Baron v. City of Los Angeles

2 Cal. 3d 535 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 1970

(Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. … See Marshall v.