Case law

Hatfield v. Levy Brothers

18 Cal. 2d 798 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1941

The floor of the store is a hardwood floor with boards of varying width and running lengthwise. Where the boards join laterally there are “V” shaped grooves about 3/16 inches wide at the top and 9/16 inches deep. … (Morton v. Manhattan Lunch Co., 41 Cal. App. (2d) 70 [ 106 Pac. (2d) 212 ]; Lamb v. Purity Stores, Inc., 119 Cal. App. 690 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 197 ]; Brown v. Holzwasser, Inc., 108 Cal.

Wilson v. Cherokee Drift Mining Co.

14 Cal. 2d 56 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1939

Co. v. Southern T. & T. Co., 17 Cal. … (See Schroeter v. Bartlett Syndicate Building Corp., 8 Cal. (2d) 12 [ 63 Pac. (2d) 824 ]; Heller Inv. Co. v. Southern T. & T. Co., supra.)

City St. Improvement Co. v. Kroh

158 Cal. 308 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1910

W. 7 ]; Andrews v. Board, 7 Idaho, 457 , [ 63 Pac. 592]; Gage v. New York, 110 App. Div. 403 , [ 97 N. Y. Supp. 157 ]; McBrian v. Grand Rapids, 56 Mich. 99 , [ 22 N. W. 206 ], 11 Cyc. 481; 20 Am. & Eng. … E. 885 ], In Inge v. Board, 135 Ala. 202 , [ 93 Am. St. Rep. 20 , 33 South. 678 ], the work had not been performed and the suit was instituted by taxpayers to restrain its performance.

Shoemaker v. Myers

52 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1990

Traub v. Board of Retirement, supra, 34 Cal.3d 793, 801 .) … (Miller v. State of California (1977) 18 Cal.3d 808, 813-814 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 557 P.2d 970 ]; see also Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 641 [ 234 P.2d 981 ]; Valenzuela 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.

Lawless v. Calaway

24 Cal. 2d 81 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1944

(Moore v. Moffatt, 188 Cal. 1, 5 [ 204 P. 220 ]; Glidden v. Diamond 66 Cattle etc. Co., 178 Cal. 562, 565 [ 174 P. 667 ]; Brown v. Sterling Furniture Co., 175 Cal. 563, 564 [166 P. 322]; Warner v. … Brown, 4 Cal.App. 515, 516 [ 88 P. 518 ].)

Sutter Butte Canal Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

40 Cal. 2d 139 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1953

When Baggett and Heape had lifted off one of the top boards, they started to carry it shoulder high across the top of the dam and Baggett necessarily stepped into the water flowing through the place where the removed board … Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1934), 219 Cal. 699, 704 [ 28 P.2d 919 ] ; Simmons Co. v. Industrial Acc.

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.

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.

Hayward v. Manzer

70 Cal. 476 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1886

(Tate v. City of Sacramento, 50 Cal. 242 .) … (People v. Williams, 64 Cal. 498 -502; San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 542 -548; San Francisco v. Calderwood, 31 Cal. 589 ; Washburn on Easements, 132; Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 647 ; Child v. Chappel, 9 N. Y. 257 .)

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.

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.

Archer v. City of Los Angeles

19 Cal. 2d 19 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1941

(Board of Drainage Com’rs. v. Board of Drainage Com’rs., supra, at 81; Dudley v. Village of Buffalo, 73 Minn. 347 [ 76 N. W. 44, 45 ]; Hamilton v. Ashbrook, supra, at 241; Lessenger v. City of Harlan, supra, at 805 .) … (San Gabriel Valley Country Club v. County of Los Angeles supra, 401, 402; Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 [ 61 N. W. 462 , 26 L. R. A. 632]; Board of Drainage Com’rs. v. Board of Drainage Com’rs., supra; Mizell v.

Althof v. Conheim

38 Cal. 230 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

(Maclay v. Love and Wife, 25 Cal. 367 ; Smith v. Greer, 31 Cal. 477 ; Brown v. Orr, 29 Cal. 120 .) … (Rollins v. Forbes, 10 Cal. 299 ; People v. Morrill, 26 Cal. 336 .)

Holtum v. Grief

144 Cal. 521 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1904

(Garoutte v. Haley, 104 Cal. 497 ; Brown v. Cline, 109 Cal. 156 .) The condition is therefore an essential part of the order, and the right to revoke it ceases when the power of the court over the order ceases. … This, in view of the decisions in Garoutte v. Haley, 104 Cal. 497 , and Brown v.

Lamb v. Wahlenmaier

144 Cal. 91 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1904

App. 164 ; Ehle v. Bingham, 7 Barb. 494 ; Baker v. Stinchfield, 57 Me. 363 ; South and North etc. R. R. Co. v. Heinlein, 56 Ala. 368; Jemvison v. West Springfield, 13 Gray, 544 .) … The same rule is declared in Brown v. Ayer, 24 Ga. 288 ; Brown v. Bradford, 30 Ga. 927 ; Gill v. Morris, 11 Heisk. 614 ;1 Dickason v. Bell, 13 La. Ann. 249 .

Oakland Paving Co. v. Whittell Realty Co.

185 Cal. 113 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1921

The Consolidation Act of 1862 (Stats. 1862, p. 398, subd. 12), after providing for an appeal and authorizing the board of supervisors to correct assessments, provides: “All the decisions and determinations of said Board, … The law of 1871-72, pages 804, 815, section 12, also provided for an appeal to the board of supervisors.

Bib'le v. Committee of Bar Examiners

26 Cal. 3d 548 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1980

(See Packer v. Board of Behavioral Science Examiners (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 190 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 96 ].) … (See Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners (1957) 353 U.S. 232 [ 1 L.Ed.2d 796 , 77 S.Ct. 752 , 64 A.L.R.2d 288 ]; Hackin v.

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.

Bickerdike v. State

144 Cal. 698 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1904

Proc., sec. 1963, subd. 1) in civil as well as in criminal cases (Hunter v. … We have discussed the effect of these certificates, as evidence, in the opinion in the case of Bickerdike v. State of California, ante, p. 681.