Case law

Bank of British N. A v. Cahn

79 Cal. 463 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1889

In Chicago Railway Co. v. United States, 127 U. S. 409 , Mr. Justice Field says: “When there are two acts or provisions of law relating” to the same subject, effect is to be given to both, if that be practicable. … (Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342 -363.)”

Villain v. Civil Service Commission

18 Cal. 2d 851 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1941

So, as stated in City of Napa v. Easterby, 61 Cal. 509 , 520: “We cannot inquire whether this is the best system which could have been adopted. It is the system found in the charter.” … (McGillicuddy v. Civil Service Com., 133 Cal. App. 782 [ 24 Pac. (2d) 942 ]; Powers v. Board of Public Works, 216 Cal. 546 [ 15 Pac. (2d) 156 ]; *859 Rodgers v. Board of Public Works, 208 Cal. 291 [ 281 Pac. 64 ].)

Klauber v. Higgins

117 Cal. 451 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1897

In Board of Commrs. v. … St. 300; Board of Commrs. v. McGurrin, 6 Daly, 349 ; Peck v. Weddell, 17 Ohio St. 271 ; State v. Glennon, 3 R. I. 276; Flinn v.

Miles v. McDermott

31 Cal. 271 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

The first point is that the resolution of intention was not published for a period of ten secular days before the resolution directing the work to be done was passed, and that, therefore, the Board of Supervisors had acquired … The same question arose in Taylor v. Palmer, ante, p. 240.

Kuhlemeier v. County of Los Angeles

2 Cal. 2d 257 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1935

(Hermance v. Supervisors of Ulster County, 71 N. Y. 481, 486 ; People v. Forrest, 96 N. Y. 544, 548 ; In re Morewood Realty Holding Co., 241 App. Div. 841 [ 271 N. Y. Supp. 392 , 396].) … In conclusion, we experience no difficulty with the case of Pacific Coast Co. v. Wells, 134 Cal. 471 [ 66 Pac. 657 ], cited by the respondent as being “on all fours with the present case.”

Upham v. Hosking

2 Cal. Unrep. 134 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1882

On this point it will be sufficient for us to refer to the late decision of this court in the case of Rowell v. … The failure to build the wharf and establish the ferry operated a forfeiture under the act, and no judicial proceeding was necessary to declare the forfeiture: Borland v. Lewis, 43 Cal. 569 ; Oakland R. R. Co. v.

Coleman v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMININISTRATION

52 Cal. 3d 1102 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1991

Section 19996.2(a) Relying on Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985) 470 U.S. 532 [ 84 L.Ed.2d 494 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 ] and Skelly v. … Decisions of the State Personnel Board, an agency of constitutional authority (Skelly v.

In Re Marriage of Fonstein

17 Cal. 3d 738 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1976

(Browning v. Browning (1929) 208 Cal. 518, 524-526 [ 282 P. 503 ]; Hansen v. Hansen, supra, 233 Cal.App.2d 575, 581-582 ; Di Grandi v. … (Mayberry v. Whittier, supra, 144 *750 Cal. 322, 325; Frankel v. Boyd (1895) 106 Cal. 608, 615 [ 39 P. 939 ]; Gould v. Fuller (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 18, 24 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 23 ]; Harley v.

Justice v. Ott

87 Cal. 530 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1891

(Brown v. Chase, 4 Mass. 436 ; Raymond v. Sawyer, 37 Me. 406 ; Robinson v. Hersey, 60 Me. 225 ; Coombs v. Janvier, 31 N. J. L. 240; Van Horn v. Hann, 39 N. J. L. 207; Steel v. Young, 4 Watts, 459 ; Fox v. … (Gronfier v. Puymirol, 19 Cal. 632 .) And if deemed expedient, the court might also have appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the incompetent. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 372.)

People v. Lynch

51 Cal. 15 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

As conclusions of law, the court below found that the order of the Board of Trustees, directing the grading and planking was void, because the board did not acquire jurisdiction to make it; that the contract for planking … It is their estimate of the revenue at the time an account is presented which must control the action of the board.” (b.) It is to be observed, also, that in Blanding v.

Green v. Swift

47 Cal. 536 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

(Governor, etc. v. Meredith, 4 Term R. 796.) 4. … (Davidson v. Boston and Maine Railroad, 3 Cush. 91 .)

Lyons v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.

20 Cal. 2d 579 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1942

(Pittman v. Carstenbrook, supra; Bloom v. Oroville-Wyandotte Irr. Dist., supra; Lundy v. Lettunich, supra; Goss v. Brown, 64 Cal. App. 381 [ 221 Pac. 683 ]; Gallo v. Boyle Mfg. Co., Inc., supra; Wood, Curtis & Co. v. … (Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers, 206 Cal. 515, 522 [ 274 Pac. 977 ].)

Gray v. Hawes

8 Cal. 562 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

Whitwell v. Barbier and others, January, 1857. Where the jurisdiction of the Court as to the subject-matter has been limited by the Constitution or the statute, the consent of parties cannot confer juris-, diction. … Diedesheimer and others v. John Brown, October, 1857.

Boys' & Girls' Aid Society v. Reis

71 Cal. 627 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1887

Carpentier, 13 Cal. 546 ; Argenti v. … (Boone on Corporations, sec. 310; Richardson v. Heydenfeldt, 46 Cal. 68 ; City of Stockton v. Creanor, 45 Cal. 646 .)

Pacific Lumber Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.

22 Cal. 2d 410 · California Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1943

(Carlson v. Industrial Acc. Com., 213 Cal. 287 [ 2 P.2d 151 ]; Luckie v. Diamond Coal Co., 41 Cal.App. 468 [ 183 P. 178 ].) … (Schaller v. Industrial Acc. Com., supra.)

Southern California Roads Co. v. McGuire

2 Cal. 2d 115 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1934

(Allied Amusement Co. v. Byram, 201 Cal. 316 [ 256 Pac. 1097 ] ; County of Los Angeles v. Hunt, 198 Cal. 753 [ 247 Pac. 897 ]; Stege v. City of Richmond, 194 Cal. 305 [ 228 Pac. 461 ]; Gadd v. McGuire, 69 Cal. … Instances of such acts may be found in the cases of Watson v. Greeley, 67 Cal. App. 328 [ 227 Pac. 664 ], and Patton v.

People v. Sierra Buttes Quartz Mining Co.

39 Cal. 511 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1870

The corporation also appeared before the Board of Equalization and complained.of the assessment as too high, 'and the Board thereupon deducted the sum of $150,000 from the valuation of the mine. … Co. v. Starbird, 10 N. H. 123; People v. Potter, 35 Cal. 110 ; First *515 Parish v. Cole, 3 Pick. 232 ; Inhabitants v. String, 5 Hals. 323 ; Dauphin Turnpike Road v. Meyers, 6 S. & R. 12.)

In Re Smith

143 Cal. 368 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1904

In Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. … Chicago, 78 Ill. 405 ; Oxanna v. Allen, 90 Ala. 468 ; People v. Armstrong, 73 Mich. 288 ; 1 Ex parte Patterson, 42 Tex. Crim. Rep. 256; Cleveland etc. Railway Co. v. Connersville, 147 Ind. 277 ; 2 Pieri v.

Vincent v. Mott

163 Cal. 342 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1912

It does not appear from the petition presented that the Oakland council has been asked to appoint on the election boards to hold the recall election persons of whom half belong to the Republican party and half to the Democratic

Vincent v. Mott

163 Cal. 342 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1912

It does not appear from the petition presented that the Oakland council has been asked to appoint on the election boards to hold the recall election persons of whom half belong to the Republican party and half to the Democratic