Case law

Lawrence v. I. N. Parlier Estate Co.

15 Cal. 2d 220 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1940

(Whitehead v. Sweet, 126 Cal. 67 [ 58 Pac. 376 ] ; Smith v. California Thorn Cordage, Inc., 129 Cal. App. 93, 102 [ 18 Pac. (2d) 393 ]; Peterson v. Taggart, 1 Cal. App. (2d) 468 [ 36 Pac. (2d) 1086 ].) … As expressed in Wickersham v.

Needham v. Abbot Kinney Co.

217 Cal. 72 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1932

The rule in this respect is well stated in Pray v. Anthony, 96 Cal. … See a discussion of this subject in Seymour v. Oelrichs, 156 Cal. 782 [ 106 Pac. 88 , 134 Am. St. Rep. 154 ], Zellner v. Wassman, 184 Cal. 80, 85 [ 193 Pac. 84 ], and Keller v. Gerber, 49 Cal.

Banks v. Yolo County

104 Cal. 258 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1894

(See Dillon v. Saloude, 68 Cal. 270 , 271.) Respondent’s cause of action is not barred by the clauses of the statute of limitations invoked by appellant. … Proc., sec. 338; Higby v. Calaveras County, 18 Cal. 178 .) There are no other points necessary to be noticed. The judgment is affirmed.

Cadwell v. State Bar

15 Cal. 3d 762 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1975

Although we are not bound by the board’s findings and must exercise our independent judgment, the findings nevertheless are entitled to great weight. (Yokozeki v. … Eight board members so recommended. Two board members dissented on the ground the discipline is excessive.

People ex rel. Drew v. Rodgers

118 Cal. 393 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1897

In People v. … (Pe ople v. Hartwell, 12 Mich. 508 ; State v. Pierce, 35 *401 Wis. 93 ; Hunt v. Chandler, 45 Mo. 452 ; People v. Loomis, 8 Wend. 396 ; Commonwealth v. Jackson, 45 Pa. St. 59.)

Seven Up Bottling Co. of Los Angeles v. Grocery Drivers Union Local 848

49 Cal. 2d 625 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1958

Leave to amend was denied on the ground that even though the plaintiff’s business affected interstate commerce the state court could exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the National Board. In Garmon v. … (See also San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26 [ 77 S.Ct. 607 , 1 L.Ed.2d 618 ]; Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U.S. 20 [ 77 S.Ct. 604 , 1 L.Ed.2d 613 ]; Guss v.

Cosgriff v. Bd. of Election Commr's of S.F.

151 Cal. 407 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1907

This is an original proceeding in mandamus to compel the board of election commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, and G. P. … (Misch v. Mayhew, 51 Cal. 514 ; Hagenmeyer v. Mendocino County, 82 Cal. 217 , [ 23 Pac. 14 ] ; Derby v. Modesto, 104 Cal. 522 , [ 38 Pac. 900 ] ; Bates v. Howard, 105 Cal. 182 , [ 38 Pac. 715 ] ; Bellmer v.

County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie

19 Cal. 2d 634 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1942

(State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501, 512 .) … (Uhl v. Badaracco, 199 Cal. 270, 284 [ 248 Pac. 917 ].) “Therefore,” as is stated in People v. Merrill, 24 Cal.

Neilson v. Crawford

52 Cal. 248 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

This is the view taken by Lord Chief Justice Denman in Hill v. Manchester and Salford v. Water Works Company, 2 N. & M. R. 573. … The same view is maintained in Haynes v. Brown, 36 N. H. 545, where the question is ably reviewed, and at great length, by the Supreme Judicial Court of New Hampshire.

Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court

59 Cal. 4th 1029 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 2014

(Thompson v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 555, initiatives. “There is . . . a clear distinction between voter-sponsored and city- council-generated initiatives.” (Id. at p. 189.) … (People v.

Fragley v. Phelan

126 Cal. 383 · California Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1899

In Staude v. … (See Morrison v. Bachert, 112 Pa. St. 322.)

People v. Marshall

50 Cal. 3d 907 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1990

Brown Error Defendant may be understood to contend that the court erred under People v. … (See People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 541-542, fn. 13.)

Epperson v. Jordan

12 Cal. 2d 61 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1938

and which board is hereby created”. … It was these short titles, prepared by the proponents of the measures, that were held legally insufficient in Boyd v. Jordan and Clark v. Jordan, supra.

Hooper v. Wells, Fargo & Co.

27 Cal. 11 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

(Aiery v. Merrill, 2 Curtis, 11.) And Mr. Chief Justice Gibson, in Atkoood v. … Justice Gardiner, referring to Alexander v.

Kelly v. Luning

76 Cal. 309 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1888

At that time the proceedings of the board of supervisors had no relation to it. … We are of opinion that this case falls within the doctrine announced in People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 23 ; 21 Am. Rep. 677 ; Brady v. King, 53 Cal. 45 .

Cummins, Inc. v. SC

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 703 · California Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2003

4 Cal.Rptr.3d 703 (2003) 76 P.3d 364 CUMMINS, INC. v. S.C. (COX). No. S117726. Supreme Court of California. September 10, 2003. Tami S. Smason, Leila Nourani, Foley & Lardner, Los Angeles, CA, for Cummins, Inc. … GEORGE, C.J., and KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ., concur.

In Re Sandel

64 Cal. 2d 412 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1966

(People v. Sama (1922) supra, 189 Cal. 153, 156-157 .) … Finally, by supplementary petition he charges the use against him of statements assertedly taken in violation of the rules of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [ 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 ], and People v.

Greenup v. Rodman

42 Cal. 3d 822 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1986

(Brown v. Ridgeway (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 732, 736 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 327 ]; Arata v. *828 Tellurium G. & S. M. Co. (1884) 65 Cal. 340, 342 [ 4 P. 195 ]; Lattimer v. Ryan (1862) 20 Cal. 628, 633 .) We are unpersuaded. … The rationale stated in Brown , i.e., that striking the answer renders it a nullity (see Brown v. Ridgeway, supra, 149 Cal.App.3d at p. 736 ), applies equally when the answer is stricken pursuant to section 2034.

Morgan v. City of Los Angeles

182 Cal. 301 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1920

*Page 309 A situation very similar to the one presented in the instant case was before this court in the case of Howland v. Board of Supervisors, 109 Cal. 152 , [ 41 P. 864 ]. … State Board of Canvassers (N. D.), 172 N.W. 80 .) The principal cases cited and relied on by the appellants are: City of Santa Rosa v. Bower, 142 Cal. 299 , [ 75 P. 829 ]; Law v.

Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre

105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 214 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 2001

(See Brown v. Superior Court (1949) 34 Cal.2d 559, 566 [ 212 P.2d 878 ]; see also 8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Extraordinary Writs, § 206, p. 997, and cases cited.) … (Sharpell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 230 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ].) 3 The 1987 ordinance (Sierra Madre Ord.