Case law

Hope v. Barnett

78 Cal. 9 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1888

(Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 642, 647 .) … (Sullivan v. State, 52 Ind. 369 ; Summers v. State, 51 Ind. 201 ; Harding v. Jasper, supra.) It was held by this court in Bolger v.

City & County of San Francisco v. Ross

44 Cal. 2d 52 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1955

(See also Public Parking Authority v. Board of Property Assessment, 377 Pa. 274 [ 105 A.2d 165 ].) … Assn. v.

McPherson v. City of Los Angeles

8 Cal. 2d 748 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1937

Reliance was placed upon Howe v. Southrey, 144 Cal. 767 [ 78 Pac. 259 , and Sheehan v. Board of Police Commrs., 188 Cal. 525 [ 206 Pac. 70 ]. … Board of Police Commrs., supra; Engebretson v. City of San Diego, 185 Cal. 475 [ 197 Pac. 651 ], Howe v. Southrey, supra, Barber v. Mulford, 117 Cal. 356 [ 49 Pac. 206 ], Bates v.

Buckley v. Superior Court

96 Cal. 119 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1892

Co. v. … As was said in Sherer v.

People v. Black

120 Cal. 553 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1898

Whether the cost of the printing shall be paid by the clerk in the first instance, or whether the person doing the work shall present his claim therefor to the board of supervisors, is immaterial. … (See San Francisco v. Broderick, 111 Cal. 302 .) ' The order asked for is granted.

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 .)

People v. Caudillo

23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294 · California Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2005

23 Cal.Rptr.3d 294 (2005) 104 P.3d 97 PEOPLE v. CAUDILLO. No. S129212. Supreme Court of California. January 12, 2005. Review granted/briefing deferred (rule 29.1). … GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ., concur.

People v. Ford Motor Co.

188 Cal. 8 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1922

(Miller & Lux v. Richardson, 182 Cal. 115 [ 187 Pac. 411 ].) … Co. v.

City of Fairfield v. Hutcheon

33 Cal. 2d 475 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1949

In Board of Supervisors v. Cothran, 84 Cal.App.2d 679, 685, 686 [ 191 P.2d 506 ], it was held that the Validating Act of 1947 [Stats. 1947, ch. 1335; 3 Deering’s Gen. … The Legislature evidently added this proviso in view of the litigation in Board of Supervisors v. Cothran, supra, to insure the validation of bonds that were previously approved for an unauthorized purpose.

Dillard v. County of Kern

23 Cal. 2d 271 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1943

“Presented and acted upon” include an objection or waiver by the board of the sufficiency of the itemization in the course of the board’s procedure. … (Ridge v. Boulder Creek etc. School Dist., 60 Cal.App.2d 453 [ 140 P.2d 990 ]; Kelso v. Board of Education, 42 Cal.App.2d 415 [ 109 P.2d 29 ]; Sandstoe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.

People Ex Rel. Post v. San Joaquin Valley Agric. Ass'n

151 Cal. 797 · California Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1907

The case of Downing v. Indiana State Board of Agriculture, 129 Ind. 443 , [ 28 N. E. 123, 614 ], holding that institution to be a private corporation, is cited as opposed to these views. … Dec. 742 ] ; Mayrhofer v. Board, 89 Cal. 110 , [ 23 Am. St. Rep. 451 , 26 Pac. 646 ] ; Witter v. School Dist., 121 Cal. 350 , [ 66 Am. St. Rep. 33 , [ 53 Pac. 905 ] ; Whittaker v.

Department of Public Works v. Superior Court

197 Cal. 215 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1925

Certain essentials to the proper exercise of the power to issue and determine such a writ must concur (Quinchard, v. Board of Trustees, 113 Cal. 664 [ 45 Pac. 856 ]). … The cases of Imperial Water Co. v.

In Re Estate of Plumel

151 Cal. 77 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1907

Ency. of Law, 2d ed. 578 ; Habergham v. Vincent, 2 Ves. Jr. 204, 228 ; Smart v. Prujean, 6 Ves. Jr. 560 ; Allen v. Maddock, 11 Moore P. C. 427 ; Brown v. Clark, 77 N. V. 369.) … Similarly, in Brown v. Clark, 77 N.

Hayes v. Campbell

55 Cal. 421 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

Upon receiving the wheat, Morgan’s Sons placed it on board the Charles Murdock in their own names, and the defendant received it on board, in the regular course cf business, as the wheat of Morgan’s Sons. … The utmost that he could do, in that respect, would be to mortgage or pledge it to the extent of any lien which he might have upon it. ( Wright v. Solomon, 19 Cal. 76 ; Warner v. Martin, 11 How. U.

Lewis v. State Bar

28 Cal. 3d 683 · California Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1981

Opinion THE COURT This is a proceeding to review a recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar (disciplinary board) that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty days, but that … (See, e.g., Call v. State Bar (1955) 45 Cal.2d 104, 110-111 [ 287 P.2d 761 ]; Friday v. State Bar (1943) 23 Cal.2d 501, 505-508 [ 144 P.2d 564 ].)

Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. Thornton

127 Cal. 575 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1900

(Biddel v. Brizzolara, 64 Cal. 354 ; Brown v. Willis, 67 Cal. 235 ; Powell v. Patison, 100 Cal. 236 ; McKean v. German-American Bank, 118 Cal. 336 ; Woodward v. Brown, 119 Cal. 283 ; Savings Bank v. … (Stoddard v. Treadwell, 26 Cal. 294 ; Love v. Sierra Nevada Lake Water etc. Co., 32 Cal. 649 ; 91 Am. Dec. 602 ; Hallock v. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 167 ; Joseph v. Holt, 37 Cal. 253 ; Murdock v. Brooks, 38 Cal. 596 ; Lambert v.

Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc.

63 Cal. 4th 167 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 2016

(Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1057 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 412 , 751 P.2d 470 ] (Brown).) The exploding bottle in Escola v. … (c); Brown, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1057.) 2.

Davis v. McFarlane

37 Cal. 634 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

(See ‘Appendix to “Browne on the Statute of Frauds.”) … (Joy v. Sears, 9 Pick. 4 ; Portland Bank v. Stacey, 4 Mass. 661 ; Buffington v. Curtis, 15 Mass. 528 .)

In Re Investigation of the Conduct of the Examination for Admission to Practice Law

1 Cal. 2d 61 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1934

(Cohen v. Wright, 22 Cal. 293, 319 .) The power of the legislature to provide for the admission of persons to practice law in this state has been continuously exercised. … We appreciate the difficulties and burdens east upon boards of governors and examining committees by the State Bar Act.

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 .