Case law

People Ex Rel. Thisby v. Reclamation District No. 556

130 Cal. 607 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1900

The same method of description was held jurisdictional and insufficient in Ralston v. Board of Supervisors, 51 Cal. 592 , and also in Ferran v. Supervisors, 51 Cal. 307 , by two of the judges, Ralston v. … Co. v. Plumas County, 37 Cal. 354 ; Martin v. Deetz, 102 Cal. 55 . 1 What are the facts ? An insufficient petition was filed December 9, 1874, with, the board of supervisors and was on that day approved.

Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann

157 Cal. 192 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1910

The earlier cases of Shock v. McChesney, 4 Yeates, (Pa.) 507, [ 2 Am. Dec. 415 ], and Bank v. Israel, 6 Serg. R. (Pa.) 294, cited in Ekel v. … v.

Paxson v. Holt

40 Cal. 466 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1871

the debt of *470 tbe City of San Francisco, (Stats. 1955, p. 285,) and by the sixth section of that Act, his salary as a member of the Board was fixed at $1,200 per annum. … There can be no question that the claim iiere made is for “ salary” of an “ officer,” and that it is a “ demand * * upon the treasury; ” and that though (as held in Paxson v.

Bodinson Manufacturing Co. v. California Employment Commission

17 Cal. 2d 321 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1941

(Drummey v. State Board, 13 Cal. (2d) 75, 82 [ 87 Pac. (2d) 848 ]; McDonough v. Goodcell, 13 Cal. (2d) 741 [ 91 Pac. (2d) 1035 , 123 A. L. R. 1205]; Whitten v. … (Drummey v. State Board, supra; Clancy v. Stockburger, 10 Cal. (2d) 651 [ 76 Pac. (2d) 678 ]; Rodgers v. Board of Pub. Works, 208 Cal. 291 [ 281 *330 Pac. 64 ]; Inglin v. Hoppin, 156 Cal. 483 [ 105 Pac. 582 ]; Lotts v.

Union Inv. Co. v. San Francisco Gas & Electric Co.

168 Cal. 58 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1914

In this behalf counsel cites such cases as Judson v. Giant Powder Co., 107 Cal. 549, 552 , [ 48 Am. St. Rep. 146 , 29 L. R. A. 718, 40 Pac. 1020 ], and Linforth v. San Francisco Gas etc. Co., 156 Cal. 60 , [19 Ann. … The proof was that the glass part of the door had been broken but the opening had been boarded up with tongue and groove lumber which left a space an inch and a half wide on the side of the boards.

Hedlund v. Davis

47 Cal. 2d 75 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1956

(See also DeWoody v. Belding (1930), 210 Cal. 461, 465 [ 292 P. 265 ].) … II; see also Pierce 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.

City of Los Angeles v. Industrial Accident Commission

63 Cal. 2d 255 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1965

The cases of Tyra v. Board of Police etc. Comrs. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 666 [ 197 P.2d 710 ], and Phillis v. … Yet, as the District Court of Appeal explained, the decision of Larson v. Board of Police etc.

Semple v. Hagar

27 Cal. 163 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

(Le Guen v. Governeur and Kemble, 1 J. Cases, 465; Marine Ins. Company v. Hodgson, 7 Crunch. 332; Will. Eq. 160.) … (See also United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch. 115 ; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450 ; United States v. Booth, 21 How. 506 ; Mott v. Smith, 16 Cal. 533 .)

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.

Metropolitan Water District v. Burney

215 Cal. 582 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1932

(See Clark v. Los Angeles, 160 Cal. 30 [ 116 Pac. 722 ].) … This question was fully considered by us and determined adversely to the contention of defendant in Golden Gate Bridge & Highway Dist. v. Felt, 214 Cal. 308 [ 5 Pac. (2d) 585 ], and Pasadena v.

Marcus v. State Bar

27 Cal. 3d 199 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1980

(Codiga v. State Bar *202 (1978) 20 Cal.3d 788, 796 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 404 , 575 P.2d 1186 ].) The record evidence supports findings of the disciplinary board. … (Grove v. State Bar (1967) 66 Cal. 2d 680, 683 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 564 , 427 P.2d 164 ].)

People v. Atkins

25 Cal. 4th 76 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2001

BROWN, J. I concur in the determination that arson is a general intent crime precluding a defense of voluntary intoxication. I write separately because I remain convinced People v. … Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428 , 959 P.2d 735 ] (Mendoza) was wrongly decided (see id. at pp. 1138-1141 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.)) and, as this case illustrates, will continue to wreak havoc in the lower

Treanor v. Williams

145 Cal. 315 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1904

See Abbott v. Hartley, 143 Cal. 484 .) … (Maddux v. Walthall, 141 Cal. 412 .)

Wettlin v. State Bar

24 Cal. 2d 862 · California Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1944

(Kepler v. State Bar, 216 Cal. 52 [ 13 P.2d 509 ].) … Vaughan v. State Bar, supra; In re Stevens, supra.)

Black v. Harrison Home Co.

155 Cal. 121 · California Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1909

In Bates v. … In Pettibone v.

Henley v. Morris

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 873 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2004

18 Cal.Rptr.3d 873 (2004) 97 P.3d 814 HENLEY v. PHILIP MORRIS USA. No. S123023. Supreme Court of California. September 15, 2004. Dismissal order filed. Respondent's motion to dismiss review granted. … GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Vargas v. Municipal Court

22 Cal. 3d 902 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1978

Meat Cutters v. … Growers Assn. v.

Au-Yang v. Barton

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 227 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1999

.”]; Capital National Bank v. … (See Johnston 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.