Case law

McCord v. Seale

56 Cal. 262 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

.: This was an action to recover the sum of $1,500, the price of a brown mare alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant, and for which the defendant promised to pay on demand; but on demand … Boston Insurance Company, 2 Cranch, 215 ; see also Cotes v. Campbell, 3 Cal. 191 ; Morrison v. Bradley & Co. 5 id. 503; Green v. Covillaud, 10 id. 322.)

Henne v. Los Angeles County

6 Cal. Unrep. 370 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1899

Sherman, 63 Cal. 38 ; People v. Board of Supervisors, 77 Cal. 136 , 19 Pac. 257 . In effect, plaintiff was assessed, not only on his own property, but upon that of the mortgagee. … had the board so directed, the mortgage, Avhich was omitted from the assessment-book, could not have been taxed, as it was state property: Hollister v.

Pacific Undertakers v. Widber

113 Cal. 201 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1896

And it is contended by petitioner that under these statutory provisions the demands here sought to be enforced are obligations imposed by law within the ruling of this court in Lewis v. … Widber, 99 Cal. 412 , and therefore not within the declaration made in San Francisco Gas Co. v.

People v. Mosley

60 Cal. 4th 1044 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2015

Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 534 *1072 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 73 P.3d 1137 ]; Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. … (Board).

Mac Gregor v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

6 Cal. 2d 596 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1936

(In addition to cases cited above, see Miller v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 169 Cal. 107, 110, 111 [ 145 Pac. 1023 ] ; Stadler v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 23 Cal. App. 571, 574 [ 138 Pac. 943 ].) … He boarded a train of defendant at-San Francisco, the first stop of which was San Jose.

Doyle v. Giuliucci

62 Cal. 2d 606 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1965

Proc., § 1294; Laufman v. Hall-Mack Co., 215 Cal.App.2d 87, 88 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 829 , 94 A.L.R.2d 1068 ].) … See also, Millsaps v. Estes, 137 N.C. 535 [ 50 S.E. 227 , 107 Am.St.Rep. 496 , 70 L.R.A. N.S. 170].

Acker v. Baldwin

18 Cal. 2d 341 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1941

(Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 Pac. 381 , 38 A. L. R. 1479]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497 [ 234 Pac. 388 ].) … (Rehfeld v. San Francisco, supra.)

Miller v. County of Kern

150 Cal. 797 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1907

Soc. v. San Francisco, 131 Cal. 356 , [ 63 Pac. 1013 ], and Columbia Sav. Bank v. … It is fully supported by the decisions in similar cases: Buswell v. Supervisors, 116 Cal. 354 , [ 48 Pac. 226 ]; People v. Eureka etc. Co., 48 Cal. 146 ; Hart v. Plum, 14 Cal. 155 ; Payne v.

Hulland v. State Bar

8 Cal. 3d 440 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1972

(Alkow v. State Bar (1971) 3 Cal.3d 924, 935 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 278 , 479 P.2d 638 ]; Simmons v. State Bar (1970) 2 Cal.3d 719, 729 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 368 , 470 P.2d 352 ]; Clancy v. … Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Attorneys, § 202, p. 209; see Bailey v. State Bar (1930) 209 Cal. 476 [ 288 P. 433 ]; Bruns v. State Bar (1941) 18 Cal.2d 667 [ 117 P.2d 327 ]; Sullivan v.

In Re Dexter

25 Cal. 3d 921 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1979

In People v. … (People v. Raner (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 107, 110 [ 194 P.2d 37 ].)

In Re Higbie

6 Cal. 3d 562 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1972

Although the burden falls on each respondent to show that the disciplinary board’s findings of moral turpitude are not supported by the evidence (Lee v. … (See Sendejas v. United States (9th Cir. 1970) 428 F.2d 1040 ; United States v. Dehar (2d Cir. 1968) 388 F.2d 430 ; Guerra v.

People v. Whitt

51 Cal. 3d 620 · California Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1990

(See People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 541 .) However, the prosecutor never asked the jury to count factors. … (See, e.g., People v. Hamilton, supra, 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1186-1187 ; People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d 432, 462 .)

Reno v. Baird

76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 499 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1998

I write separately with respect to plaintiff’s Tameny cause of action {Tameny v. … {Stevenson v. *666 Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 911-925 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888 , 941 P.2d 1157 ] (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).)

Southwestern Investment Corp. v. City of Los Angeles

38 Cal. 2d 623 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1952

Retirement Board, 61 Cal.App.2d 701, 703 [ 143 P.2d 707 ]; Ellenberger v. City of Oakland, 76 Cal.App.2d 828, 830 [ 174 P.2d 461 ].) … In Chin Ott Wong v.

Perlberg v. Gorham

10 Cal. 120 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

Lucas, Turner & Co. v. Paine & Dewey, ( 7 Cal., 92 .) Whatever amount Gorham might have had to pay, he could have had no recourse upon Stewart. … See, also, Pearson v. Hooker, (3 Johns. R., 68;) Salmon and Brown v. Davis, (4 Binney, 475,) and Emerson v. Knower, ( 8 Pick., 66 .) We think the Court below erred in giving this instruction. 4.

Mudrick v. Market Street Railway Co.

11 Cal. 2d 724 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1938

(Aldrich v. Palmer, 24 Cal. 513, 516 ; Wheaton v. North Beach & M. R. R. Co., 36 Cal. 590, 591 ; Lee v. Southern Pacific Co., 101 Cal. 118 [ 35 Pac. 572 ]; Howland v. Oakland etc. … (Lafargue v.

Swamp-Land Reclamation District No. 407 v. Wilcox

2 Cal. Unrep. 794 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1887

The county clerk is ex-officio clerk of the board of supervisors, and as such must record all the proceedings of the board. … The parol proof offered was consequently properly rejected. ” So in Morrison v.

Grundel v. Union Iron Works

141 Cal. 564 · California Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1904

It is alleged that Grundel, “having business to perform upon the vessel,” attempted to board it by means of the gang-plank. … L. 102; Matthews v. Bonsee, 51 N. J. L. 30; Parker v. Portland Pub. Co., 69 Me. 173 ; 5 Redigan v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 155 Mass. 44 ; 6 Moffatt v. Kenney, 174 Mass. 311 ; Cusick v. Adams, 115 N. Y. 55 ; 7 Gibson v.

McKay v. McKay

125 Cal. 65 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1899

(Finch v. Finch, 22 Conn. 411 ; Ramsey v. Ramsey, 121 Ind. 215 ; Burritt v. Burritt, 29 Barb. 124 ; Harris v. Harris, 5 Kan. 46 ; Hancock v. Merrick, 10 Cush. 41 ; Brown v. Smith, 19 R. I. 319; Hall v. … A contrary holding was made in Pretzinger v. Pretzinger, 45 Ohio, 452, 4 Am. St. Rep. 542 , hut, as was said in Brown v.

In Re Bogart

9 Cal. 3d 743 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1973

As pointed out in Alkow v. … (See Bogart v. State Bar, 390 U.S. 37 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 814 , 88 S.Ct. 837 ]; Bogart v. Reagan, 386 U.S. 211 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 871 , 87 S.Ct. 979 ]; Bogart v.