Case law

Anglo California National Bank of San Francisco v. Leland

9 Cal. 2d 347 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1937

(Board of Commrs. v. Lucas, 93 U. S. 108 [ 23 L. Ed. 822 ]; Walker v. Ferguson, 176 Ark. 625 [ 3 S. W. (2d) 694 ]; McIver Abstract Co. v. Slaton, 178 Ark. 632 [ 11 S. W. (2d) 447 ]; Grieb v. … of Commrs. v.

Anderson v. Superior Court

11 Cal. 4th 1152 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1995

In Zumwalt v. … (Id. at p. 476; see also Christy v. B. S. Sacramento Co. (1870) 39 Cal. 3, 11 .) Thereafter, in Mills v.

Parker v. Colburn

196 Cal. 169 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1925

Board, 242 Mass. 194 [136 N. E. *177 245]; Storer v. Downey, 215 Mass. 273 [ 102 N. E. 321 ].) … Zoning regulations are promulgated in the exercise of that power (Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 [38 A. L. R. 1479, 234 Pac. 381 ]).

Faulkner v. California Toll Bridge Authority

40 Cal. 2d 317 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1953

(Sipper v. Urban (1943), 22 Cal.2d 138, 141 [ 137 P.2d 425 ]; see, also, Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners (1943), 21 Cal.2d 790, 795-800 [ 136 P.2d 304 ]; Russell v. … (Meyer v. Board of Public Works (1942), 51 Cal.App.2d 456, 470 [ 125 P.2d 50 ] ; Jones v. O'Toole (1923), 190 Cal. 252, 255 [ 212 P. 9 ].)

Ball v. Kenfield

55 Cal. 320 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

. *321 Each of the members of the board received a commission from the Governor, May 29th, 1876, and on the 27th of June, following, the board met, qualified, and organized. … The performance of the acts arc conditions precedent to the holding of the office. ( United States v.

In Re Sumida

177 Cal. 388 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1918

place of public amusement. ’ ’ Section 3 is as follows: "The provisions of Sec. 1 hereof shall not apply or be construed to apply to persons, firms, corporations or associations who on Sunday keep open bona fide hotels, boarding … (Darcy v. City of San Jose, 104 Cal. 645 , [ 38 Pac. 501 ].)

McNeil v. Kingsbury

190 Cal. 406 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1923

Colgan, 111 Cal. 580 [44 Pac. 238]; People v. Pacific Imp. Co., 130 Cal. 442 [ 62 Pac. 739 ] ; Trinity County v. Mendocino Co., 151 Cal 279 [ 90 Pac. 685 ]; Reed Orchard Co. v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. … Ed. 634 ]; Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761 [ 23 L. Ed. 769 ] ; United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459 [ 59 L. Ed. 673 , 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 309]; Buhne v. Chism, 48 Cal. 467 .)

Reclamation Dist. No. 70 v. Birks

159 Cal. 233 · California Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1911

Code, sec. 3455; Reclamation District 535 v. … In People v.

McManus v. O'Sullivan

48 Cal. 7 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

Thus, in Page v. … Again, in Farrish v.

Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.

35 Cal. 3d 197 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1983

Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104, 109 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 ]; Lavine v. Jessup (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 59, 69 [ 326 P.2d 238 ].) 17 The specificity requirement serves two purposes. … (Lavine v. Jessup, supra, 161 Cal.App.2d 59, 69 ; see Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz, supra, 57 Cal.App.3d 104, 109 ; Scafidi v. Western Loan & Bldg. Co. (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d 550, 553 [ 165 P.2d 260 ].)

Department of Institutions v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

219 Cal. 668 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1934

The ease upon which the appellant appears to rely most strongly is that of State v. Board of Commissioners of Shawnee County, 132 Kan. 233 [ 294 Pac. 915 ] (certiorari denied 283 U. S. 855 [51 Sup. Ct. 648, 75 L. … Board of Commissioners of Shawnee County, supra), and the cases relied upon are not conflicting or inconsistent with the Murphy case.

UFITEC, S.A. v. Carter

20 Cal. 3d 238 · California Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1977

Thus, in Roth v. … Comm. v. United Financial Group, Inc., supra, 474 F.2d 354, 357-358 ; Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corp. v. Maxwell (2d Cir. 1972) 468 F.2d 1326, 1333-1337 ; Schoenbaum v.

Garrison v. North Pasadena Land Etc. Co.

163 Cal. 235 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1912

The findings bring respondent clearly within that class of corporations recognized by such cases as Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co., 139 Cal. 25 , [ 72 Pac. 395 ] ; Barton v. … (Lane v. Tanner, 156 Cal. 138 , [ 103 Pac. 846 ]; Sather Banking Co. v. Briggs Co., 138 Cal. 726 , [ 72 Pac. 352 ].)

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 .

Barber v. Reynolds

33 Cal. 497 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1867

[Jones v. Frost, 28 Cal. 246 .) The plaintiffs, after demurrer, and before the trial of the issue of law thereon, were entitled to amend as of course. (Practice Act, Sec. 67.) … (Seldon v. Vermilya, 4 Sandf. Ch. 573; 1 Hoff. Ch. 301 ; Warburton v. London and B. R. R. Co., 2 Bea. 254; Pratt v. Archer, 1 Sim. & St. 433; Pickering v. Hanson, 2 Sim. 488; Furness v. Brown, 8 How. 59 ; Walker v.

Shipp v. Superior Court of San Bernardino Cty.

209 Cal. 671 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1930

In fact, in People v. … (In re Mitchell, 120 Cal. 384, 392 [ 52 Pac. 799 ] ; Ex parte Fedderwitz, 130 Cal. xviii [ 62 Pac. 935 ]; Williams v. Board of Trustees, 157 Cal. 711, 719 [ 109 Pac. 482 ].)

Wells v. Harter

56 Cal. 342 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

Brown, 36 Cal. 184 , “ the original contract, or the moral obligation arising thereupon, binding in foro conscientiae, notwithstanding the law of the statute.” (See also Chabot v. Tucker, 39 Cal. 438 : § 360, Code Civ. … (Baum v. Grisby, 21 Cal. 175 ; Camden v. Vail, 23 id. 633.) It follows, that the judgment and order must be affirmed, and it is so ordered. McKinstry, J., and McKee, J., concurred.

Wheeler v. West

71 Cal. 126 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1886

(Mecham v. McKay, 37 Cal. 165 ; Ponce v. McElvy, 51 Cal. 222 .) 3. … (Riddle v. Brown, 20 Ala. 412 ; S. C., 56 Am. Dec. 202 ; Funk v. Halderman, 58 Pa. St. 229; Gillette v. Treganza, 6 Wis. 343 ; Grubb v. Bayard, 2 Wall. Jr. 81 ; Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St. 483; Dal v.

Bee v. Cooper

217 Cal. 96 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1932

(Chetwood v. California Nat. Bank, 113 Cal. 414 [ 45 Pac. 704 ] ; Tompkins v. Clay St. R. R. Co., 66 Cal. 163 [ 4 Pac. 1165 ] ; Johnson v. Pickwick Stages System, 108 Cal. App. 279, 283-285 [ 291 Pac. 611 ]; Bogardus v. … In Ruble v. *101 Turner, 12 Va. (2 Hen. & M.) 38 , cited with approval in Flynn v.

Wadsworth v. Wadsworth

81 Cal. 182 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1889

(See, generally, Blackburne v. Blackburne, L. R. 1 D. & M. 563; Brown v. Brown, L. R. 3 D. & M. 202; D. v. D., L. R. 10 P. D. 75; Moore v. Moore, L. R. 12 P. D. 193.) … (See Stoner v. Stoner, 9 Ind. 505 ; Glascock v. Glascock, 94 Ind. 505 ; Ficke v. Ficke, 62 Mo. 337 ; compare Hoffman v. Hoffman, 43 Mo. 547 .)