Case law

Gay Law Students Ass'n v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.

24 Cal. 3d 458 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1979

Cir. 1969) 417 F.2d 1161 ; Society for Individual Rights, Inc. v. Hampton (N.D. Cal. 1973) 63 F.R.D. 399 ; Saal v. Middendorf (N.D. Cal. 1977) 427 F.Supp. 192, 199-203 ; Martinez v. Brown (N.D. … (See, e.g., Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board (1941) 313 U.S. 177, 191-192 [ 85 L.Ed. 1271, 1281-1282 . 61 S.Ct. 845 , 133 A.L.R. 1217 ]: and N.L.R.B. v.

Alward v. Johnson

208 Cal. 359 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1929

On the basis of that statement, and pursuant to the Constitution, supra, the board levied a tax of $2,978.78 for the year 1927. … Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. ( 85 U. S. 5 ) 33 [ 21 L. Ed. 787 , see, also, Rose’s U. S.

Wiedwald v. Dodson

95 Cal. 450 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1892

(See also Spring Valley Water Works v. San Francisco, 52 Cal. 117 ; Spring Valley Water Works v. Bryant, 52 Cal. 140 .) … In State v.

Sohler v. Sohler

135 Cal. 323 · California Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1902

In Utah (Benson v. … And though nothing was said there of forgery, that is stronger: nor will I infringe on what is laid down there, and in Andrews v. Powys, 2 Brown Parl. C. 504, and in the case of Mr. Hawkins’s will.

Chase v. Trout

146 Cal. 350 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1905

(Brown v. Drain, 112 Fed. 585 ; 187 U.S. 635 ; Lent v. Tillson, 72 Cal. 404 .) These seem to comprise all the essentials required by either the state or federal constitution. … Soc. v. Ramish, 138 Cal. 130 ; Spaulding v. Homestead etc. Assn., 87 Cal. 45 ; Farmers etc. Bank v. Board, 97 Cal. 328 ; People v. Los Angeles, 133 Cal. 342 .) 7.

Palmer v. City of Long Beach

33 Cal. 2d 134 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1948

Laws, 1944, Act 5619), which provides that cities are liable for injuries to persons resulting from the dangerous or defee *137 tive condition of public streets, highways, and property, where the governing or managing board … (Woodward v. Brown, 119 Cal. 283, 295 [ 51 P. 2 , 542, 63 Am.St.Rep. 108 ]; Haese v. Heitzeg, 159 Cal. 569, 575 [ 114 P. 816 ]; see 23 Cal.Jur., § 12, p. 826; 2 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, § 257, p. 454.)

Himmelmann v. Sherman

1 Cal. Unrep. 803 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1873

It is settled that, when there has been no motion for a new trial, this court will not consider the question whether the judgment was justified by the evidence: Reed v. Bernal, 40 Cal, 628. … by order *804 of the board, or at all.

Southwest Exploration Co. v. County of Orange

44 Cal. 2d 549 · California Supreme Court · May 10, 1955

(See also Buswell v. Board of Supervisors of Alameda County (1897), 116 Cal. 351 [ 48 P. 226 ].) … (See Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1945), 25 Cal.2d 918, 922 [ 156 P.2d 1 ]; Richfield Oil Corp. v. Crawford (1952), 39 Cal.2d 729, 736 [ 249 P.2d 600 ]; Nelson v.

Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.

74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1998

Part II expresses a majority’s views except for the reservations stated by Justice Brown. (See cone. & dis. opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 249, fn. 1.) … (Cone. & dis. opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 252, fn. 2.) Citing no other authority, Justice Brown attempts to find support for her argument in Kapellas, supra, 1 Cal.3d at page 36 .

Nolen v. F. O. Engstrum Co.

175 Cal. 464 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1917

(Penson v. Island etc. Co., 73 Wash. 338 , [L. R. A. 1915F, 15, 132 Pac. 39 ]; O’Connor v. Mennie, 169 Cal. 217 , [ 146 Pac. 674 ].) … (Hale v. San Bernardino etc. Co., 156 Gal. 715, [ 106 Pac. 83 ].) The judgment and order are affirmed. Victor E. Shaw, J., pro tern., and Sloss, J., concurred.

In Re Bonds of S. San Joaquin Irrigation Dist.

161 Cal. 345 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1911

The fact that the provision of the irrigation law of 1897 for an appeal to the superior court from the determination of the board of supervisors has been declared unconstitutional (Chinn v. … The argument is fully met and conclusively answered in Nevada Bank of San Francisco v. Board of Supervisors of Kern Co., 5 Cal. App. 638 , [ 91 Pac. 122 ]. *348 5.

Wallace v. Hudson

170 Cal. 596 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1915

Penniman, 26 Cal. 120 ; Hartley v. Brown, 46 Cal. 201 ; Hartley v. Brown, 51 Cal. 465 ; Cooper v. Wilder, 111 Cal. 191 , [ 52 Am. St. Rep. 163 , 43 Pac. 591 ], and Wittenbrock v. Wheadon, 128 Cal. 150 , [ 79 Am. St. … “In Fortes v. Gracey, 94 U. S. 762 , [ 24 L.

Latipac, Inc. v. Superior Court of Marin County

64 Cal. 2d 278 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1966

(Gatti v. Highland Park Builders, Inc. supra; Weiman v. Superior Court (1959) 51 Cal.2d 710 [ 336 P.2d 489 ]; Citizens State Bank v. Gentry (1937) 20 Cal.App.2d 415 [ 67 P.2d 364 ]; Oddo v. … In Steinwinter v.

In Re Bear

216 Cal. 536 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1932

Riley, 198 Cal. 23 [ 243 Pac. 429 ], Heron v. Riley, 209 Cal. 507 [ 289 Pac. 160 ], and In re Halck, 215 Cal. 500 [ 11 Pac. (2d) 389 ]. … Section 3 provides that such products shall not be sold until inspected by the state board of health and until a permit shall be issued by that board.

Oster v. State Bar

2 Cal. 2d 625 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1935

V. Turner, a friend of Beatty’s,, a gambler who operated a gambling ship known as the “Monte Carlo” lying off the coast of Long Beach. … We are satisfied with the recommendation of the Board of Governors of The State Bar.

People v. Adcox

47 Cal. 3d 207 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1988

(Compare People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 536-537, vacated sub nom. California v. … (People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 544, fn. 17 .)

Breidert v. Southern Pacific Co.

61 Cal. 2d 659 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1964

Chase Lumber Co. v. Railroad Com. (1931) 212 Cal. 691, 706 [ 300 P. 12 ]; Bacich v. Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal.2d 343, 349 [ 144 P.2d 818 ].) … (See Rose v. State, supra, 19 Cal.2d 713 ; Bacich v. Board of Control, supra, 23 Cal.2d 343 .)

Powers v. Raymond

197 Cal. 126 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1925

For a certain distance in this pathway, at the time of the injury complained of, three twelve-inch boards were laid side by side lengthwise the walk. … Under the terms of the contract she was to receive as her compensation sixty-five per cent of the gross receipts from her department and board and room.

Werner v. State Bar

24 Cal. 2d 611 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1944

(Light v. State Bar, 14 Cal. 2d 328 [ 94 P.2d 35 ]; Furman v. State Bar, 12 Cal.2d 212 [ 83 P.2d 12 ]; Hizar v. State Bar, 20 Cal.2d 223 [ 124 P.2d 812 ]; Utz v. … (Sizar v. State Bar, supra, at 227; Petersen v. State Bar, supra, at 870; Moura v. State Bar, 18 Cal.2d 31 [ 112 P.2d 629 ]; Kennedy v. State Bar, 13 Cal.2d 236, 240 [ 88 P.2d 920 ].)

Aalwyn's Law Institute v. Martin

173 Cal. 21 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1916

not alleged that plaintiff was a stockholder of record, and in view of the status of the corporation when plaintiff acquired its interest, it could not have become such. (2 Cook on Corporations, 6th ed., sec. 641; Muir v. … (Brown v. Duluth M. & N. R. Co., 53 Fed. 889 ; Hodge v. United States Steel Corp., 64 N. J. Eq. 90, [ 53 Atl. 601 ].) The demurrer of the Ocean Shore Railroad Company, also, was therefore properly sustained.