Case law

Shepard v. McNeil

38 Cal. 72 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

The work having been accepted and approved by the Superintendent, if the parties were dissatisfied with his action, they should have appealed to the Board of Supervisors. This was their only remedy. (Emery v. … (Himmelman v. Cofran, 36 Cal. 411 .) Non constat but' that he did so in this case.

Coye v. Palmer

16 Cal. 158 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

consideration passing between the indorsee and his indorser is not equal to the amount of the paper, the indorsee, in an action against the indorser, can only recover the consideration which he has actually paid. ( Cook v. … Cockrill, 1 Stew. 475 ; Brown v. Moot, 7 John. 860 ; Braman v. Hess, 13 Id. 52; Munn v. The President, etc., of the Commission Company, 15 Id. 43; Youse v. McCreary, 2 Blackf. 243 .)

Sodikoff v. State Bar

14 Cal. 3d 422 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1975

In these proceedings, of course, petitioner has the burden of showing that the findings of the board are unsupported by substantial evidence. (Caldwell v. … (Rohe v. State Bar (1941) 17 Cal.2d 445, 450 [ 110 P.2d 389 ]; accord, Pickering v. State Bar (1944) 24 Cal.2d 141, 145 [ 148 P.2d 1 ].)

Cavanaugh v. Jackson

99 Cal. 672 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1893

Illinois has a provision of law quite similar to the one under present investigation, and it is there held (Bolden v. … But in Brown v.

Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC

213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 764 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2017

(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 848 (Aguilar); see Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, ¶ 10:278, pp. 10-127-128.) … Name of Opinion Perry v.

Estate of Weir

168 Cal. 330 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1914

Did John Seiler furnish board and lodging to John Weir for the two years ending February 13, 1912 ? “A. Yes. “2. If your answer to the above question is ‘yes,’ then state what the value of said board and lodging was. … (Irrgang v. Ott, 9 Cal. App. 441 , [99 Pac. 528]; Obersteller v. Commercial Assurance Co., 96 Cal. 647 , [ 31 Pac. 587 ].)

Whittaker v. Superior Court

68 Cal. 2d 357 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1968

(Watson v. Division of Motor Vehicles (1931) 212 Cal. 279, 284 [ 298 P. 481 ]; see also Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 57 Cal.2d 228, 233 .) … (Asbury Hospital v. Cass County (1945) 326 U.S. 207, 215 [ 90 L.Ed. 6, 13 , 66 S.Ct. 61 ] ; see Board of Education v. Watson, supra, 63 Cal.2d 829, 833 .)

In Re Rust

181 Cal. 73 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1919

In Bessette v. … The case of People v.

Linggi v. Garovotti

45 Cal. 2d 20 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1955

In Machado v. Board of Public Works of Arlington (1947), 321 Mass. 101 [ 71 N.E.2d 886 ], one DiMaggio owned property abutting on the Parkway and adjacent to the land owned by Machado. … Machado v. Board of Public Works of Arlington, supra, 71 N.E.2d 886 .)

Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District v. Rector

172 Cal. 385 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1916

No. 531 v. McCullah, 124 Cal. 176 , [ 56 Pac. 887 ]; Reclamation Dist. No. 551 v. Van Loben Sels, 117 Cal. 165 , [ 49 Pac. 131 ].) … Rep. 713 , 7 Pac..728]; Matter of Miller, 162 Cal. 698 , [ 124 Pac. 427 ]; Ruperich v.

Pacific Coast Railway Co. v. Ramage

4 Cal. Unrep. 743 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1894

Price, Juan V. Avila, N. Goldtree, H. M. Newhall, John 0’Farrell, F. S. … of the constitution : See Santa Clara Co. v.

People ex rel. Gerberding v. Superior Court of S.F.

100 Cal. 105 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1893

In Brundred v. Paterson Machine Co., 4 N. J. … The act applies to both savings and commercial banks (Wells, Fargo & Co. v.

Morris v. County of Marin

18 Cal. 3d 901 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1977

. *903 COUNSEL Hoberg, Finger, Brown & Abramson, Hoberg, Finger & Brown and Richard H. Carlson for Plaintiff and Appellant. *904 Douglas T. Maloney, County Counsel, Allen A. … Contrary to defendant's suggestion, the case of O'Hagan v. Board of Zoning Adjustment (1974) 38 Cal. App.3d 722 [ 113 Cal.

People v. Santa Fe Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

28 Cal. 2d 675 · California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1946

Skinner, 18 Cal.2d 349 [ 115 P.2d 488 , 149 A.L.R. 299 ], and cases therein cited; State Tax Commissioner v. Board of Supervisors, 43 Ariz. 156 [ 29 P.2d 733, 739 ]; Powell v. … V. Co. v.

Marston v. White

91 Cal. 37 · California Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1891

Co. v. Bedford, 90 Cal. 181 .) It does not, however, render a sale of separate parcels en masse, in disregard of its requirements, absolutely void. … (San Francisco v. Pixley, 21 Cal. 57 ; Blood v. Light, 38 Cal. 654 ; 99 Am. Dec. 441 ; Browne v. Ferrea, 51 Cal. 552 ; Vigoureux v. Murphy, 54 Cal. 346 .)

Hatch v. State Bar of California

55 Cal. 2d 127 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1961

The burden is upon one seeking a review of a recommendation of the board to show that its findings are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Sturr v. … Alkow v. State Bar, 38 Cal.2d 257, 262 [3] [ 239 P.2d 871 ].)

Nicholl v. City of San Francisco

201 Cal. 470 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1927

This argument is persuasive, but not conclusive, and the case of O’Connell v. Retirement Board of the City of Boston et al., 254 Mass. 404 [ 150 N. E. 2 ], to the contrary, likewise is not conclusive. … In Anderson v. Lewis, 29 Cal.

Maynard v. Brandon

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 558 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2005

(Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1105 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 222 ].) … board sought to create a mechanism for arbitrating disputes over legal fees and costs.

Converse v. Ferguson

166 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1913

Hage by McElroy Brown, the tenant who went into possession of the land after the defendants left it. Mr. … (Hayne on New Trial and Appeal, sec. 89; Berry v. Metzler, 7 Cal. 418 .)

People v. Saviers

14 Cal. 29 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

(State v. Brown, 4 Porter, 410 ; The State v. Duncan, 9 Id. 260; The State v. Click, 2 Ala. 27 .)