Case law

S.F. Pioneer Woolen Factory v. Brickwedel

60 Cal. 166 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1882

As respects the first, I am of the opinion that the construction placed by a majority of the Court on the provisions of the new Constitution in relation to water, in the case of the Spring Valley Water Works v. … The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, 7 Pac. C. L.

Gold v. Salem Lutheran Home Assn.

53 Cal. 2d 289 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1959

Unlike Coyne v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. … the Board of Directors may determine.

Harvey v. Fresno Traction Co.

175 Cal. 489 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1917

(Ja cquette v. Capital Traction Co., 34 App. D. C. 41, [25 L. R A. (N. S.) 407].) … (Berry v. St. Louis Transit Co., 211 Mo. 88 , [ 109 S. W. 661 ]; Burger v. Omaha & C. B. St. R. R. Co., 139 Iowa, 645 , [ 130 Am. St. Rep. 343 , 117 N. W. 35 ].)

In Re Petersen

208 Cal. 42 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1929

The first of these contentions may be dismissed, it having been decided in State Bar of California v. … V in the Rodrick ease, it is as follows: “That at each and all of the times hereinabove referred to, wherein said Cedric W.

Monster Energy Company v. Schechter

249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 295 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2019

(Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1067.) … (Board of Trustees of California State University v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 889, 899.) There is little doubt here that “[c]onfidentiality was an important term of that settlement” (Jalali v.

Hondo Co. v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834 · California Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1999

81 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 (1999) 970 P.2d 408 HONDO COMPANY et al., Petitioners v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent Estate of Bobbie Jean King, Real Party in Interest No. S074768. Supreme Court of California. … GEORGE, C.J., MOSK, J., KENNARD, J., BAXTER, J., WERDEGAR, J., CHIN, J., BROWN, J., concur.

In Re Mize

11 Cal. 2d 22 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1938

The power of a county board of supervisors to change the boundaries of judicial townships under section 4015, Political Code, has been recognized repeatedly. (See, also, sec. 4041.10, Pol. Code; People v. … Chaves, 122 Cal. 134 [ 54 Pac. 596 ], under the County Government Act, Stats. 1893, p. 346; Proulx, v. Graves, 143 Cal. 243 [ 76 Pac. 1025 ]; Osborn v. Board of Supervisors, 27 Cal. App. 85 [ 148 Pac. 970 ]; Deupree v.

Chapman v. Morris

28 Cal. 393 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1865

The principles announced in Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 349 ; Contra Costa County v. Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, 26 Cal. 649 ; and People v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 176 , are applicable to this case.

Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of Livermore

18 Cal. 3d 582 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1976

(American Civil Liberties Union v. Board of Education (1963) 59 Cal.2d 203, 218 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 700 , 379 P.2d 4 ].) … (See Town of Los Altos Hills v. Adobe Creek Properties, Inc., supra, 32 Cal.App.3d 488 .) The two-acre zoning law in Board of County Sup’rs of Fairfax County v.

Peek v. Peek

1 L.R.A. 185 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1888

(See Atherly on Marriage, p. 90; Browne on Statute of Frauds, 4th ed., sec. 459; Henry v. Henry, 27 Ohio St. 121 .) … In Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24 , 3 Am.

Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 145 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2005

However, unlike Justice Kennard, for the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Morris v. … De La Torre (2005) 36 Cal.4th 260 -279, 280 [30 Ca.Rptr.3d 173, 113 P.3d 1182 ] (conc. opn. of Brown, J.)), I do not believe our decision in Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. 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.

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.

People v. Prather

134 Cal. 386 · California Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1901

In People v. … State v. Brown, 8 Nev. 208 , appears to be in line with these suggestions.

City & County of San Francisco v. Central Pacific Railroad

63 Cal. 467 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1883

The property to be assessed by the board is defined in the *469 10th section of article ix. of the Constitution of 1879. … Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12 .)

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. Bacigalupo

6 Cal. 4th 457 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1993

(People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 539-540.) … (People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 541.)

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

Trower v. City and County of San Francisco

157 Cal. 762 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1910

of supervisors or board of education, then within one month after the regular session of the proper board, held next after the demand accrued, . . … Bank 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 .)