Case law

Baines v. West Coast Lumber Co.

104 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1894

Shanklin, 57 Cal. 70 ; Carey v. Brown, 58 Cal. 180 ; Owens v. Colgan, 97 Cal. 454 ); nor do respondents contend that they had. … (Carey v. Brown , 58 Oal. 181; Pomeroy’s Code Remedies, 890.)

City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey

236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 835 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 2018

(See Simpson v. … Brown for League of California Cities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent. Orry B. Korb and James R.

Farwell v. Jackson

28 Cal. 105 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1865

We held in Brown v. Martin, ( 25 Cal. 82 ,) that the party relying upon the Statute of Limitations, by demurrer, must specially point out the objection in his demurrer, otherwise the objection would be disregarded.

Tuck v. Industrial Home

106 Cal. 216 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1895

Neither do we find any by-law of the board of directors outlining the course to be pursued by the board in ridding the home of disreputable and intractable persons. … By order entered upon the minutes of the board it appears that the petitioner was guilty of insubordination and misconduct, and the action of the board must be deemed final and conclusive, as far as this court is concerned

De Bernal v. Lynch

36 Cal. 135 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1868

The petition for confirmation of the claim being sufficient to give the Board of Commissioners jurisdiction of the claim, the decree of the District Court, on appeal from the decision of the Board of Commissioners, is not … (Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 248 ; Thornton v. Mahoney, 24 Cal. 579 ; Seale v. Ford, 29 Cal. 105 ; Stevenson v. Bennett, 35 Cal. 424 ; Fremont v. United States, 17 How. 558 ; United States v. Fossat, 20 How. 426 .)

Sacramento Bank v. Murphy

158 Cal. 390 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1910

(Weber v. McCleverty, 149 Cal. 316 , [ 86 Pac. 706 ].) Under a deed of trust the land is charged with the payment of the debt, but technically the debt is not a lien upon the land. … (Grant v. Burr, 54 Cal. 298 ; Savings and Loan Society v. Burnett, 106 Cal. 528 , [ 39 Pac. 922 ]; Weber v. McCleverty, 149 Cal. 316 , [ 86 Pac. 706 ]; Travelli .v. Bowman, 150 Cal. 587 , [ 89 Pac. 347 ].)

McCord v. Slavin

143 Cal. 325 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1904

(See Keeran v. Allen, 33 Cal. 542 .) … His claim is based upon the contract between him and the state (Miller & Lux v. Batz, 131 Cal. 402 ; San Luis Obispo County v.

People v. Hernandez

45 Cal. 4th 295 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 2008

(See U.S. v. Wilson (4th Cir. 2000) 205 F.3d 720 ; Bius v. State (2002) 254 Ga.App. 634 [ 563 S.E.2d 527 ]; State v. Childs (1993) 242 Neb. 426 [ 495 N.W.2d 475 ]; State v. … Asked to describe it further, he said it was a “brown Toyota pickup truck.”

County of Los Angeles v. Eikenberry

131 Cal. 461 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1901

It is next urged that the ordinance is void for the reason that it attempts to license the sales and not the business, and we are referred to the case of Merced County v. Helm, 102 Cal. 159 . … It has been said that the rule in Merced County v. Helm, supra, went to the extreme verge of strictness, and the court has been disposed to limit rather than extend its application.

Rickey v. Superior Court

59 Cal. 661 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1881

The writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of a tribunal, corporation, board, or person, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board, or person. (C. C. … Such was the decision of the highest Court of this State in the People v. County Court of El Dorado County ( 10 Cal. 19 ), approved in Funkenstein v. Elgutter (11 id. 328). The reasoning in those cases applies here.

Golden State Theatre & Realty Corp. v. Johnson

21 Cal. 2d 493 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1943

Defendant lays great stress on the case of Union Oil Associates v. … (Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co., 242 U.S. 503 [ 37 S.Ct. 201 , 61 L.Ed. 460 ] ; McCoach v. Minehill & Schuylkill Haven R. R. Co., 228 U.S. 295 [ 33 S.Ct. 419 , 57 L.Ed. 842 ]; United States v.

Horacek v. Smith

33 Cal. 2d 186 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1948

(DeYoung v. DeYoung, 27 Cal.2d 521, 526 [ 165 P.2d 457 ].) … In Hobart v.

Stowell v. Rialto Irrigation District

202 Cal. 193 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1927

Dist. v. … (Ham v. Grapeland District, 172 Cal. 611, 618 [ 158 Pac. 207 ].)

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 .)

Watkinson v. Vaughn

182 Cal. 55 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1920

This language has been quoted, or its substance repeated, and the principle enunciated by it applied in a number of subsequent decisions. ( Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 568 , [ 89 P. 352 ]; Board of Education v. … This is settled by the cases of Turrill v. Grattan, 52 Cal. 97 , Dyer v. Miller, 58 Cal. 585 , Mulligan v. Smith, 59 Cal. 206 , and Kahn v. Board, 79 Cal. 396 , [ 21 P. 849 ], and as to that point there is no dispute.

Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles

42 Cal. 3d 1020 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1986

Whitfield v. … Section 911.6 provides in full: “(a) The board shall grant or deny the application within 45 days after it is presented to the board.

Maidman v. Jewish Publications, Inc.

54 Cal. 2d 643 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1960

Pfaif, entitled ‘Frazier v. Pass’; and “2. It correctly states that a gentile plaintiff was represented by attorney Samuel Maidman who is the chairman of the Administrative Board of the B’nai B’rith Record; and “3. … (Bates v. Campbell, supra, 213 Cal. 438, 442 ; MacLeod v.

Southern Pacific Co. v. City & County of San Francisco

62 Cal. 2d 50 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1964

The board of supervisors honored this request by its Order No. 2599. … Furthermore, in Goodman v. Southern Pac.

Frink v. Prod

31 Cal. 3d 166 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1982

(See Savelli v. Board of Medical Examiners (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 124, 129, 131-132 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 171 ].) … (Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 68 Cal.2d 67, 75 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 435 P.2d 553 ].)

In Re Newell

188 Cal. 762 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1922

It is a settled rule applicable to such powers given to a board of supervisors by statutes of this character that the determination of the board that the facts exist which make it necessary for an ordinance to take effect … Co. v. San Francisco, 167 Cal. 772 [52 L. R A. (N. S.) 676, 141 Pac. 384 ]; Josselyn v. San Francisco, 168 Cal. 441 [ 143 Pac. 705 ]; Keyes v. San Francisco, 177 Cal. 317 [ 173 Pac. 475 ]; Burr v.