Case law

Quintal v. Laurel Grove Hospital

62 Cal. 2d 154 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1964

Thornburg is an American board certified anesthesiologist, and Dr. Palmberg is an American board certified ophthalmologist. … Fall River Joint Union High School Dist., 118 Cal.App. 673, 681 [ 5 P.2d 930 ] ; Messner v. Board of Dental Examiners, 87 Cal.App. 199, 204 [ 262 P. 58 ] ; Riskin v. Industrial Acc.

Bigley v. Nunan

1 Cal. Unrep. 855 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1876

The fact, however, that his property was depreciated in value by the alleged nuisance is not to be included in this category: Hopkins v. Wn. Pac. R. R. Co., 50 Cal. 150 . … This was such special damage as entitled him to maintain the action: Schulte v. N. P. T. Co., 50 Cal. 592 .

Powerine Oil Co., Inc. v. Superior Court

33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 562 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2005

Club v. … (Bank of the West v.

Knight v. Martin

128 Cal. 245 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1900

Tulare County v. May, 118 Cal. 303 , relied upon by the appellant, is not inconsistent with the doctrine laid down in Dwyer v. Parker, supra. … The opinion in Dwyer v. Parker, supra, was filed January 5, 1897.

Southern California Rapid Transit District v. Bolen

1 Cal. 4th 654 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1992

In Hadley v. … (Sailors v. Board of Education (1967) 387 U.S. 105, 110-111 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 650, 654-655 , 87 S.Ct. 1549 ].)

Western Granite & Marble Co. v. Knickerbocker

103 Cal. 111 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1894

Nevertheless, on the 19th of June, 1891, defendant commenced to build a°long the division line a solid board fence twenty feet high, in such manner as to prevent the passage of light and air into said windows. … In Chandler v. Thompson, 3 Camp. 89, Le Blanc, J., said: .

Spring v. Hewston

52 Cal. 442 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

See, also, Harramond v. MeQlaughon, Taylor’s (N. C.) B. 84; Fix v. Johnson, 5 N. H. 524; Bruce v. Taylor, 2 J. J. Marsh. 162; and Brown v. Hager, 21 How. 318 .) … (Fice v. Hollis, 1 Maulé & S. 105; Down v. Cooper, 2 Q. B. 256; 15 Wend. 89 , 90, 92, 97; 7 Cowen, 723; Columbet v. Pacheco, *444 48 Cal. 397 : Hastings v. Starlc, 36 Cal. 122 ; Sneed v.

Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club

10 Cal. 4th 594 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1995

In Tillman v. … Rotary Club of Duarte v. Board of Directors, supra, 178 Cal. App.3d 1035, 1055-1058 ; United States Jaycees v. McClure, supra, 305 N.W.2d 764, 768-769 .)

Barry v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Sanitarium of the Sisters of Mercy

5 Cal. Unrep. 625 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1897

The agreement was that Little should be furnished with a private room, and board, care and medical attendance in sickness, during the term of his natural life. … Besides, mere inadequacy of price is not alone sufficient to warrant a court in setting aside a sale: Hammond v. Wallace, 85 Cal. 522 , 20 Am. St. Rep. 239 , 24 Pac. 837 .

Williams v. Bergin

6 Cal. Unrep. 299 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1899

The suit was upon a second assessment ordered by the board of supervisors after a successful appeal by the plaintiffs from the first assessment. … but, when reliance is had upon the judgment of such a tribunal as the foundation for an asserted right, it must be shown by proper averment that the tribunal had jurisdiction to render the judgment in question: Williams v.

Herzo v. City of San Francisco

33 Cal. 134 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1867

Most of the material facts in this case are the same as those in McCracken v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 621 ; Grogan v. San Francisco, 18 Cal. 610 ; Pimental v. San Francisco, 21 Cal. 351 ; and Satterlee v. … In Zottman v.

Alanis v. Superior Court

1 Cal. 3d 784 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1970

Superior Court, 269 Cal.App.2d 314 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 853 ]; People v. Horton, 264 Cal.App.2d 192 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 186 ]; People v. Barnes, 239 Cal.App.2d 705 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 77 ]; Cal. … of Trustees of the California Institution for Women at such times and in such form as each board may prescribe.

Worth v. State Bar

17 Cal. 3d 337 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1976

Petitioner has the burden in this proceeding to show that the findings of the disciplinary board are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Lewis v. … (Id., at p. 713; Simmons v. State Bar (1969) 70 Cal.2d 361, 365 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 915 , 450 P.2d 291 ]; Clark v. State Bar (1952) 39 Cal.2d 161, 166-170 [ 246 P.2d 1 ].)

Earl Ranch, Ltd. v. Industrial Accident Commission

4 Cal. 2d 767 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1935

(Brown v. Anderson, 77 Cal. 236 [ 19 Pac. 487 ]; Shaffner v. Lipinsky, 194 N. C. 1 [ 138 S. E. 418 ]; Byrne v. Bearden, 27 Ga. App. 149 [ 107 S. E. 782 ].) … (See Mulville v. San Diego, 183 Cal. 734, 739 [ 192 Pac. 702 ]; Bagg v. Wickizer, 9 Cal. App. (2d) 753 [ 50 Pac. (2d) 1047 ].)

Schroeder v. Happ

155 Cal. 153 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1909

(Ametrano v. Downs, 170 N. Y. 388 , [ 88 Am. St. Rep. 671 , 63 N. E. 340 ]; Brown v. Thorndike, 32 Mass. 388 ; Hattersley v. Bissett, 51 N. J. Eq. 597, [ 40 Am. St. Rep. 532 , 29 Atl. 187 ].)

Cardwell v. Sabichi

59 Cal. 490 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1881

(Lowe v. Alexander, 15 Cal. 301, 302 ; Rowley v. Howard, 23 id. 404 .) Ho intendments can be indulged in favor of the jurisdiction of such Courts. (Lowe v. Alexander, ut supra. See Peacock v. … (Drake v. Duvenick, 45 Cal. 463 .) Tullis v. Scott, 38 Tex. 537 , and Board v. Board, 4 Abb. (N.

Smith v. Dall

13 Cal. 510 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

Brown, conveyed the same to Malachi Fallon, by a deed which was never recorded. Afterwards the same property was conveyed by Charles Richardson to Whitcomb and Lien, and by them to the plaintiff. … In Fogg v.

Low v. Lewis

46 Cal. 549 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

On the 17th April, 1862, the Legislature passed an Act which authorized the Board of Supervisors of said city and county to “ settle, compound, *551 and compromise, and adjust” certain indebtedness arising from the claims … (Fall v. Marysville, 19 Cal. 391 .) The tax for which the lot was sold, being illegal and void, the sale was a nullity, and the tax deed conveyed no title. (Hardenburgh v. Kidd, 10 Cal. 402 ; Bucknall v.

Wutchumna Water Co. v. Bailey

216 Cal. 564 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1932

For it appears that in 1921, in the cause entitled Tulare Irrigation District v. … Finally, in 1926, when a vacancy occurred on the board of directors of appellant and a deadlock existed as a result thereof and pending the filling of the vacancy on the board respondent, as appellant’s attorney, recommended

Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley

60 Cal. 4th 1086 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2015

.‖ (Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of Supervisors (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 497, 513.) … Chatten-Brown & Carstens, Jan Chatten-Brown, Douglas P. Carstens; Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp, Michael W.