Case law

People v. Reclamation Dist. No. One Hundred & Eight

53 Cal. 346 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1879

In Bow v. Allenstown, 34 N. … The People v. Farnham, 35 Ill. 562 , is similar in its principal features to the last cited case, and the same doctrine was maintained. (See, also, People v. Manhattan Co. 9 Wend. 379 ; North Hempstead v.

Wright v. Ashton

143 Cal. 544 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1904

The precise question was presented in the case of Snibley v. … In Soto v. Vannoy, 65 Cal. 285 , it was held that where it was determined that there was a tie vote, neither party could recover costs. These cases are decisive of the case at bar. The judgment is affirmed.

Allen v. State Bar

58 Cal. 2d 912 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1962

The Board of Governors declined to recommend that he be reinstated, and the matter is now before this court for a review of the board’s action. Allen, who is 46 years old, was admitted to the State Bar in 1954. … (People v. Hamilton, 55 Cal.2d 881 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 649 , 362 P.2d 473 ].) Although this evidence shows that Allen may have been indiscreet, it does not appear that he was guilty of any improper conduct.

In Re Estate of Duffill

180 Cal. 748 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1919

A very similar case to the one at bar is Brown v. Severson, 59 Tenn. (12 Ileisk.) 381. … (Kilpatrick v. Johnson, 15 N. Y. 322 ; Pruyn v. Sears, 96 Misc. Rep. 200 , [ 161 N. Y. Supp. 58 ] ; Cochrane v. Schell, 140 N. Y. 516 , [ 35 N. E. 971 ]; Manice v. Manice, *761 43 N. Y. 303 -376; Matter of Ossman v.

Rojas v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 653 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2003

130 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 (2003) 63 P.3d 212 Genoveva ROJAS et al., Petitioners, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent; Julie Coffin et al., Real Parties in Interest. No. S111585. … Petitions for review GRANTED. *654 GEORGE, C.J., and KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Rider v. Edgar

54 Cal. 127 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

The law is declared in Phillips v. … Brown, 8 Wend. 611 , where the Supreme Court of New York said: “To maintain trover or trespass, de bonis asportatis, evidence of an actual forcible dispossession of the plaintiff is not necessary; any unlawful interference

South Coast Regional Commission v. Gordon

18 Cal. 3d 832 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1977

In McKart v. … And in United States v.

Mahoney v. Van Winkle

33 Cal. 448 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1867

before the Board of Land Commissioners, under sanction of the Board and direction of the attorneys of the claimants, and to confoi'm their locations according thereto; that the survey in this instance was made by Hansom, … (Goodlet v. Smithson, 5 Port. 245 ; Wright v. Swan, 6 Port. 84 ; Bullock v. Wilson, 5 Port. 338 ; Gale v. Davis, 7 Mo. 544 ; Hunter v. Hemphill, 6 Mo. 106 ; Robinson v. Forrest, 29 Cal. 321 .)

Rankin v. Sisters of Mercy

82 Cal. 88 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1889

Mary’s Hospital, wherein it received, boarded, lodged, and cared for persons for pay or hire; that on the tenth day of July, 1882, Collins became an inmate of said house, to be boarded, lodged, and cared for by defendant, … Proc., sec. 462; Curtiss v. Sprague, 49 Cal. 301 ; Colton L. & W. Co. v. Raynor, 57 Cal. 588 .) And we also think that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the instruction. Collins was a religious devotee.

Bates v. Campbell

213 Cal. 438 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1931

(Chavez v. Times-Mirror Co., 185 Cal. 20, 25 [ 195 Pac. 666 ] ; Grand v. Dreyfus, 122 Cal. 58, 61 [54 Pac. 389]; Hearne v. De Young, 119 Cal. 670 [ 52 Pac. 150 ] ; Des Granges v. Crall, 27 Cal. … In Swan v.

Whittaker v. Thompson

53 Cal. 2d 192 · California Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1959

(v) After February 7,1946, the date on which the Giles contract was signed, Giles removed less than 4 million board feet of timber from the land. Defendant Walter C. … The rule is thus stated in Mallett v.

McKiernan v. Lenzen

56 Cal. 61 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

. *64 In Gillett v. … In Carey v.

City of Arcata v. Green

156 Cal. 759 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1909

One of the conditions is that “all cars shall stop at street crossings whenever signalled by persons desiring to board or alight therefrom subject to regulations of the board of trustees.” … (Herzo v. San Francisco, 33 Cal. 134 ; Ex parte Frank, 52 Cal. 608 , [ 28 Am. Rep. 642 ] ; McCoy v. Briant, 53 Cal. 250 ; South Pasadena v. Terminal Railway Co., 109 Cal. 315 , [ 41 Pac. 1093 ].)

Bonner Oil Co. v. Pennsylvania Oil Co.

150 Cal. 658 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1907

(See Reynolds v. Pennsylvania Oil Co., ante, p. 629, [ 89 Pac. 910 ].) … On cross-examination he testified that there had been no meeting of the board of directors of plaintiff since June 28, 1901; that the board of directors of plaintiff never authorized the acceptance of the note sued on; that

Vallejo Ferry Co. v. Lang & McPherson

161 Cal. 672 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1911

The city of Vallejo was incorporated in 1872 by a charter *674 which (sec. 10, subd. 13) conferred upon its board of trustees the power “to grant licenses and franchises, in the manner provided by law for boards of supervisors … Such cases as Kennedy v. Board of Education, 82 Cal. 492 , [ 22 Pac. 1042 ]; People v.

People v. Scott

14 Cal. 4th 544 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1996

Opinion BROWN, J. A jury convicted defendants Damien Scott and Derrick Brown of various crimes for their part in a drive-by shooting which resulted *546 in the death of one person and injury to several others. … (See People v.

Long v. Superior Court of San Francisco

102 Cal. 449 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1894

It is said in Smith v. … Co. v.

Sturr v. State Bar

52 Cal. 2d 125 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1959

Therefore, on this review the burden is upon petitioner to show wherein the decision of the Board of Governors was erroneous or unlawful. (R ing v. State Bar, 218 Cal. 747, 750 [2] [ 24 P.2d 821 ] ; Aydelotte v. … In Mills v.

Owens v. Colgan

97 Cal. 454 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1893

Proc., sec. 387; Carey v. Brown, 58 Cal. 180 ; Laugenour v. Shanklin, 57 Cal. 70 .)

People v. Motton

39 Cal. 3d 596 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1985

As Justice Marshall observed in Peters v. … Justice Tobriner in his dissent in Rubio v.