Case law

Meyer v. Great Western Insurance

104 Cal. 381 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1894

Co. v. Albro Co., 112 U. S. 506 .) … Meyer had referred to them as the agents of the board of underwriters, and it was admitted that the defendant was a member of that board, ajid-the-agent of the defendant had stated to him that the telegram had been sent at

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.

Uhlhorn v. Goodman

84 Cal. 185 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1890

V. … V. Burner.” The instrument made up of the foregoing parts is marked “ Exhibit B.”

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 ].)

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 ].)

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.

Cronus Investments v. Concierge Svcs.

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2003

2 Cal.Rptr.3d 185 (2003) 72 P.3d 1166 CRONUS INVESTMENTS v. CONCIERGE SVCS. No. S116288. Supreme Court of California. July 16, 2003. Petition for review granted. BROWN, J., was absent and did not participate.

Dam v. Zink

112 Cal. 91 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1896

(Carey v. Brown, 58 Cal. 184 ; Pralus v. Pacific etc. Co., 35 Cal. 34 ; Frazier v. Crowell, 52 Cal. 401 ; Smith v. Acker, 52 Cal. 217 ; Daly v. Sorocco, 80 Cal. 367 , and cases there cited.)

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.

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.

Joyce v. Shafer

97 Cal. 335 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1893

Plaintiff bases his claim upon the rule laid down in Cleary v. Folger, 84 Cal. 316 ; 18 Am. St. Rep. 187 ; Drew v. Pedlar, 87 Cal. 443 ; 22 Am. St. Rep. 257 ; and Phelps v. Brown, 95 Cal. 572 .

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.)

May v. Hanson

5 Cal. 360 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1855

Willis v. Jones, 1 McCord, 105 . Cohen v. Hume, Ibid, 440. Rutherford v. McGowen, 1 Nott & McCord, 17. Fisher v. Crisbee, 12 Ill., 344 , and the cases there cited. … Beatty v. Gilmore, 16 Penn. St. Rep., 463.

Jameson v. James

155 Cal. 275 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1909

Brown, 70 Cal. 544 , [ 12 Pac. 464 ]; Buckley v. Howe, 86 Cal. 596 , [ 25 Pac. 132 ]; Gage v. Gunther, 136 Cal. 338 , [ 89 Am. St. Rep. 141 , 68 Pac. 710 ].) … It is not claimed by appellants that they, to quote the language of this court in Plummer v. Brown , occupied “such a status as entitled them to control the legal title.”

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.

Knell v. Morris

39 Cal. 2d 450 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1952

(See Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation, 23 Cal.2d 256 [ 143 P.2d 929 ] ; McCordic v. Crawford, 23 Cal.2d 1 [ 142 P.2d 7 ] ; Taylor v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 17 Cal.2d 594 [ 110 P.2d 1044 ] ; Snow v. … This principle was recently applied in Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation, 23 Cal.2d 256 [ 143 P.2d 929 ], to hold the owner of premises liable for the defective condition of an elevator.

Mendocino County v. Morris

32 Cal. 145 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

The fact that the bond was approved by the County Judge, instead of the Board of Supervisors, is no defense to the action. … (People v. Edwards, 9 Cal. 286 ; People v. Evans, 29 Cal. 436 .)

Loop Lumber Co. v. Van Loben Sels

173 Cal. 228 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1916

(See Coburn v. Townsend, 103 Cal. 233 , [ 37 Pac. 202 ]; Roystone Company v. Darling, 171 Cal. 526 , [ 154 Pac. 15, 19 ].) … (See Byrne v. Drain, 127 Cal. 663, 667 , [60 Pac. 433]; Barber Asphalt Co. v. Costa, 171 Cal. 138 , [ 152 Pac. 296 ].)

Knights Landing Ridge Drainage District v. Reclamation District No. 730

1 Cal. 2d 350 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1934

Co. v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District, 72 Cal. App. 68, 74 [ 237 Pac. 59 ]. … (Reclamation District No. 551 v. County of Sacramento, 134 Cal. 477, 479 [ 66 Pac. 668 ]; see, also, People v. Richards, 86 Cal. App. 86, 92 [ 260 Pac. 582 ].)