Case law

Rozewski v. Simpson

9 Cal. 2d 515 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1937

The doctrine was apparently repudiated in the case of Sutliff v. … Rep. 30 ]; Kall v. Carruthers, 59 Cal. App. 555 [ 211 Pac. 43 ]; Nola v. Orlando, 119 Cal. App. 518 [ 6 Pac. (2d) 984 ]; and in the late case of Green v. General Petroleum Co., 205 Cal. 328 [ 270 Pac. 952 , 60 A. L.

Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 552 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2003

Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 31 Cal.3d 124, 138 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 642 P.2d 792 ]; see Decker v. City of Imperial Beach (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 349, 358 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 356 ].) … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurred.

Doeg v. Cook

126 Cal. 213 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1899

The defendants are the town marshal, who is also ex officio street commissioner, his bondsmen, and the individuals composing the board of town trustees. … San Joaquin Co., 21 Cal. 426; Winbigler v. Los Angeles, 45 Cal. 36 ; Chope v. Eureka, 78 Cal. 588 ; 12 Am. St. Rep. 113 ; Arnold v.

Roseberry v. Edward F. Niehaus & Co.

166 Cal. 481 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1913

S.) 896, 122 Pac. 962 ], Davis v. California Street Cable Ry. Co., 105 Cal. 131 , [ 38 Pac. 647 ]; Brett v. Frank & Co., 153 Cal. 274 , [ 94 Pac. 1051 ], s. c. 162 Cal. 736 , [ 124 Pac. 437 ], and McGraw v. Friend etc. … (Giraudi v. Elec. Imp. Co., 107 Cal. 125 , [ 48 Am. St. Rep. 114 , 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 596, 40 Pac. 108 ]; Jacobson v. Oak *484 land Meat etc. Co., 161 Cal. 430 , [Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1194, 119 Pac. 653 ].)

Kinnison v. Guaranty Liquidating Corp.

18 Cal. 2d 256 · California Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1941

App. 714, 721 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 86 ]; Freedmans’ Savings & Trust Co. v. Shepherd, 127 U. S. 494 [8 Sup. Ct. 1250, 32 L. Ed. 163 ]; Long v. W. P. Devereux Co., 87 Mont. 198 [ 286 Pac. 402 ]; Myers v. Brown, 92 N. J. … Bank v. King, 57 Pa. 202 [ 98 Am. Dec. 215 ]; Morrill v. Raymond, 28 Kan. 415 [ 42 Am. Rep. 167 ]; Brown v. Maguire’s, etc. Agency, 343 Mo. 336 [ 121 S. W. (2d) 754 ]; 4 Am. Jur. 719 ; 15 Cal. Jur. 1002.)

Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Commission

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 527 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 2003

132 Cal.Rptr.2d 527 (2003) 65 P.3d 1285 MARINE FORESTS SOCIETY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. S113466. Supreme Court of California. En Banc. … GEORGE, C.J, and KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ, concur.

In Re Bloom

19 Cal. 3d 175 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1977

{Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 888 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 544 P.2d 929 ]; *180 Bradpiece v. State Bar (1974) 10 Cal.3d 742, 748 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 518 P.2d 337 ].) … (See Barreiro v. State Bar (1970) 2 Cal.3d 912, 925 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 192 , 471 P.2d 992 ]; Coviello v. State Bar (1955) 45 Cal.2d 57, 65 [ 286 P.2d 357 ].)

Yokozeki v. State Bar

11 Cal. 3d 436 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 1974

Although we have the final word as to the discipline to be imposed (Glickman v. State Bar, supra, 9 Cal.3d 179, 184), the recommendation of the Board is given great weight. (Schullman v. … Petitioner has the burden of showing that the Board’s recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Persion v.

Richter v. Lightston

161 Cal. 260 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1911

For the same reasons no more force attaches to the permit of the board of health to conduct a hotel, which amounts to nothing other than a declaration that the premises are sufficiently sanitary to justify the issuance of … It is finally urged that the ordinance is in conflict with the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States and Barber v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 , [5 Sup. Ct. 357, 28 L.

In Re Larsen

44 Cal. 2d 642 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1955

There is neither a constitutional right (Escoe v. … People v.

Cameron v. State of California

7 Cal. 3d 318 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1972

(Baldwin v. … See Stanford v.

Duncan v. Ramish

142 Cal. 686 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1904

(Stats. 1891 196; French v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 181 U. S. 324 ; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345 ; Brown v. Drain. 187 U. S. 635 .) In support of their position the appellants rely on the case of Norwood v. … In Brown v.

Mitchell v. Colgan

122 Cal. 296 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1898

reference to the board of examiners. … Cochran v. Los Angeles Countly, 117 Cal. 534 , was an action to recover for the care and keeping of children committed from defendant county.

Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc.

California Supreme Court · Jul 6, 2023

(Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 214 (Brown).) As we recently explained, the rule of Civil Code section 1714, though broad, “has limits.” (Brown, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 214.) … (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 203.)” (Regents, at p. 619; see Brown, at p. 214.)

Farney v. Stockton Port District

12 Cal. 2d 653 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1939

the board shall be during the pleasure of the board”. … This decision was referred to with approval in People v. Abbott, 16 Cal. 358 , and Spreckels v. Graham, 194 Cal. 516, 528 [ 228 Pac. 1040 ].

Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glens Falls Insurance Co.

121 Cal. 167 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1898

(Citing Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 671.) There Is no merit in this point. … (Citing Soule v.

Rosenfield v. Malcolm

65 Cal. 2d 559 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1967

Like Bagley v. … Our recent decision in Stanton v.

Graf v. Montecito County Water District

1 Cal. 2d 222 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1934

They boarded the train, which was called the ‘ Saturday Special’ and at 4:50 o’clock in the afternoon the train left the camp with appellants on board. … Exchange v. Industrial Acc. Com., 190 Cal. 433 [ 213 Pac. 257 ], and Hama Logging Co. v. Department of Labor and Industries, 157 Wash. 96 [ 288 Pac. 655 ].

Tulare Water Co. v. State Water Commission

187 Cal. 533 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1921

In Iglin v. … In Puterbaugh v.

Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 821 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2007

Selmi; Chatten-Brown & Carstens, Jan Chatten-Brown, Santa Monica, and Douglas P. … Factual and Procedural Background The facts are drawn from the record before the County's Board of Supervisors (Board) when that body took the challenged actions. (See Western States Petroleum Assn. v.