Case law

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 .)

Sherman v. Quinn

31 Cal. 2d 661 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1948

County of San Diego v. … Board of Supervisors (1932), 126 Cal.App. 670, 672, 674 [ 15 P.2d 209 ] (mandamus to compel board of supervisors to cancel taxes); State Land Settlement Board v.

In re Champion

58 Cal. 4th 965 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2014

(See People v. … (See People v.

Hurley v. Ryan

137 Cal. 461 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1902

CHIPMAN, C. to recover for board, lodging, and for services rendered defendant’s intestate, Florence McCarthy, in her lifetime. … The principle was clearly stated and fully considered in Melone v.

Dillon v. Municipal Court

4 Cal. 3d 860 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1971

In Hague v. … (Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners (1962) 57 Cal.2d 228, 238 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 368 P.2d 101 ].)

Hamilton v. State Bar

23 Cal. 3d 868 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1979

(Sodikoff v. State Bar (1975) 14 Cal.3d 422, 431 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 535 P.2d 311 ].) Discipline The unanimous recommendation of the disciplinary board is that petitioner be disbarred. … In making its recommendation the disciplinary board properly considered petitioner’s record of three prior disciplinary proceedings.

McMickens v. McMickens

220 Cal. 731 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1934

respecting the settlement of the property rights of the parties in the pending divorce action, they reached an oral agreement that beginning in the fall of 1928 the minor child should be entered in some military or other boarding … (Peterson v. Weissbein, 75 Cal. 174, 177 [ 16 Pac. 769, 770 ], quoting from Freeman on Judgments, sec. 267; 15 Cal. Jur. 124, 126.)

City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court

13 Cal. 3d 933 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1975

Petitioners, the City and County of San Francisco and individual members of the city’s board of supervisors, seek a writ of prohibition to restrain the superior court from enforcing an order *935 requiring the individual … In the recent case of County of Los Angeles v.

Pac. Fruit Co. v. Coon

107 Cal. 447 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1895

(Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Cal. 121 ; Cali *453 fornia etc. Hotel Co. v. Callender, 94 Cal. 127 ; 28 Am. St. Rep. 99 .) W. H. … But however this may be, no act of the board of directors, legal or illegal, could have had the effect to cancel W. K. Masten’s subscription.

Peters v. City & County of San Francisco

41 Cal. 2d 419 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1953

(Sexton v. … The clerk of the board stamped the signed claim “Received,” returned it to the attorney, and retained the unsigned copy for the files.

Schaffer v. State

212 Cal. 367 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1931

representations made by petitioner to a third person, whereas other positive allegations charged petitioner with the appropriation to his own use of moneys belonging to others. [1] Besides, in the recent case of In re Herron v. … After questioning petitioner, the board of governors recommended the increased penalty of six months' suspension.

Houston v. McKenna

22 Cal. 550 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

We held in the case of Conlin v. … (Cre ighton v. Pragg, 21 Cal. 115 ; Scarborough v. Dugan, 10 Id. 305.)

People v. Hager

2 Cal. Unrep. 13 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1876

In Dyer v. … This was no defense to the action and was properly stricken out: Hager v. Supervisors, 47 Cal. 222 .

Perine v. Forbush

97 Cal. 305 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1893

And in the case of McBean v. Redick, 96 Cal. 191 , it was also held that the property owner is not required to appeal to the board of trustees or city council, when the assessment is based upon an invalid contract. … (Himmelman v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 276 ; Boyle v. Hitchcock, 66 Cal. 129 ; Fanning v. Leviston, 93 Cal. 186 ; Frick v. Morford, 87 Cal. 579 .)

McCall v. Harris

6 Cal. 281 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

Neither is the board authorized to set apart such fund. … It could hardly be contended with fairness, that the fourteenth and sixteenth sections of the Act were intended to cut off all previous existing indebtedness, and as intimated by us in the case of Brooks v.

Pearlin v. State Bar

18 Cal. 2d 682 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1941

The Board of Governors adopted the findings and has recommended to this court that petitioner be disbarred from the practice of the law. … (Maggart v. State Bar, 7 Cal. (2d) 495, 502 [ 61 Pac. (2d) 451 ].) In our opinion disbarment is warranted under the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record.

People v. McFarland

58 Cal. 2d 748 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1962

(See People v. Brown, 200 Cal.App.2d 111, 118 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 36 ].) … (See e.g., People v. Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577, 593-594 [ 320 P.2d 5 ] ; People v. Logan, 41 Cal.2d 279, 291 [ 260 P.2d 20 ].)

Hildebrand v. State Bar

36 Cal. 2d 504 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1950

State Bar, 217 Cal. 47 [ 17 P.2d 112 ]; Burke v. State Bar, 218 Cal. 143 [ 21 P.2d 577 ]; Herrscher v. … (Hildebrand v. State Bar, 18 Cal.2d 816 [ 117 P.2d 860 ]; Ryan v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 268 Ill.App. 364 ; In re Seidman, 228 App.Div. 515 [ 240 N.Y.S. 592 ].)

Loveland v. Garner

74 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1887

(Felch v. Beaudry, 40 Cal. 439 ; Hemme v. Hays, 55 Cal. 339 ; Gay v. Winter, 34 Cal. 153 ; Fitzgibbon v. Calvert, 39 Cal. 261 .) … (Curtis v. Richards, 9 Cal. 38 .) And in such a case, the defendant should, at least, show “ how it happened that he was without knowledge as to such ‘facts.” (Brown v. Scott, 25 Cal. 190 .)

People v. Shaw

17 Cal. 2d 778 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1941

(People v. Robbins, 171 Cal. 466 [ 154 Pac. 317 ]; People v. Woodcock, 52 Cal. App. 412, 417 [ 199 Pac. 565 ]; People v. Janssen, 74 Cal. App. 402, 407 [ 240 Pac. 799 ].) In People v. … (People v. Viets, 79 Cal. App. 576, 587 [ 250 Pac. 588 ].)” ’ ” In People v.