Case law

Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co.

49 Cal. 2d 764 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1958

Co. v. … “Every director is entitled to an opportunity to be present and participate in the deliberations of the board and to express his opinion with respect to any proposed action.” (Hill Dredging Corp. v.

Golinsky v. Allison

114 Cal. 458 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1896

(Jeffrey v. Hursh, 49 Mich. 31 ; Wood v. Goodridge, 6 Cush. 117 ; 52 Am. Dec. 771 ; Brown v. Rouse, 93 Cal. 237 .) For an exhaustive discussion of the subject see Campbell v. Foster Home Assn., 163 Pa. St. 609; 43 Am. … (Jeffrey v. Hursh, supra.) In Billings v. Morrow, 7 Cal. 171 , 68 Am.

Travelers Insurance v. Industrial Accident Commission

33 Cal. 2d 685 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1949

(Brown v. Industrial Acc. Com., 44 Cal.App.2d 6, 12-13 [ 111 P.2d 931 ]; Hartford A. & I. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 140 Cal.App. 482 [ 35 P.2d 366 ].) Dr.

Association of California Insurance Companies v. Jones

212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 395 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 2017

(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 401, 415 (Western States).) … We note as well that other jurisdictions have characterized a similar grant of administrative rulemaking authority as ―broad.‖ (Suttman v. Brown (1993) 5 Vet.App. 127, 135; Massachusetts Elec. Co. v. Department of Pub.

People v. Lewis

47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2006

(People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th 382, 401.) … (See People v. Griffin, supra, 33 Cal.4th 536, 585 ; People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th 382, 402 ; People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th 226, 275 .)

Seymour v. Oelrichs

156 Cal. 782 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1909

(See 5 Browne on Statute of Frauds, sec. 457a.) In the section last cited, Mr. … In White v.

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.

Treadway v. Semple

28 Cal. 652 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1865

advanced in Waterman v. … Assuming these points, and accepting the decision in Waterman v.

Perine v. Erzgraber

102 Cal. 234 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1894

The resolution of intention passed by the board of supervisors described the work intended to be ordered as follows: “That granite curbs belaid on Locust avenue, between Larkin and Polk streets, where not already laid; that … The contention of appellant that the assessment was void, by reason that it was levied upon the lot on one side of the street only, is met by the statute, and by the decision upholding it, in McDonald v.

San Lorenzo Education Assn. v. Wilson

32 Cal. 3d 841 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1982

(Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) 431 U.S. 209, 221 [ 52 L.Ed.2d 261, 275 , 97 S.Ct. 1782 ].) … (Chavez v. Sargent (1959) 52 Cal.2d 162, 197 [ 339 P.2d 801 ]; Douglas Aircraft Co. v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 636, 646 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 723 ]; Porter v.

Tyre v. Aetna Life Insurance

54 Cal. 2d 399 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1960

Brown, 12 Cal.App. 2d 272, 274 [ 55 P.2d 539 ]) have been upheld as to the spouse’s community interest by reference to the testamentary power. … (Lauricella v. Lauricella, 161 Cal. 61, 69 [ 118 P. 430 ] ; Mazman v. Brown, 12 Cal.App.2d 272, 275-276 [ 55 P.2d 539 ].) Under these cases an election is required here.

People v. Dalton

58 Cal. 226 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

It was not the purpose of the former to authorize any person to disinter or remove a dead body, provided he should be able to satisfy the Mayor or Board of Health that it could be done without danger to the health of the … (People v. Garcia, 25 Cal. 538 ; People v. Girr, 53 id. 629 ; People v. War, 20 id. 119; People v. Phipps, 39 id. 326.)

City of Sacramento v. State of California

50 Cal. 3d 51 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1990

The City of Sacramento (City) and the County of Los Angeles (County) filed claims with the State Board of Control (Board) (see Rev. & Tax. Code, former § 2250 et seq.; see now Gov. … in the Board’s government-claims report to the Legislature.

Stoll v. Stoll

5 Cal. 2d 687 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1936

Code, see. 2356; Flanagan v. Brown, 70 Cal. 254 [ 11 Pac. 706 ]; Parke v. Frank, 75 Cal. 364 [ 17 Pac. 427 ] ; Blumenthal v. Goodall, 89 Cal. 251 [ 26 Pac. 906 ]; 1 Cal. Jur., p. 705.) … See, also, Brown v. National Electric Works, 168 Cal. 336 [ 143 Pac. 606 ].) The foregoing makes manifest what was intended by the language employed in the former opinion.

Larez v. Shannon

2 Cal. 3d 813 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1970

The board members appealed from the judgment to the Court of Appeal, Third District. We ordered the appeal transferred to this court. … Westbrook v. Mihaly (S.F. 22706) ante, p. 765 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 471 P.2d 487 ] and Adams v. Mihaly (S.F. 22707) ante, p. 765 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 471 P.2d 487 ]; Alhambra City School Dist. v.

Lawrence Barker, Inc. v. Briggs

39 Cal. 2d 654 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1952

In Judd v. … Norton, 42 Cal.App. 705 [ 184 P. 45 ] ; Brown v. Lane, 102 Cal.App. 350 [ 283 P. 78 ]; Security Realty Co. v. Kost, 96 Cal.App. 626 [ 274 P. 608 ]). In Burke v.

Thompson v. Hoge

30 Cal. 179 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1866

.: One of the points upon which the defendants rely, is that the resolution of intention to grade the street, which was passed by the Board of Supervisors in March, 1862, was pot presented to the President of the Board of … The point was considered in Creighton v.

O'Rourke v. Skellenger

169 Cal. 270 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1915

The rule is stated in Brown v. Spencer, 163 Cal. 592, 593 , [ 126 Pac. 493 ], and many of our decisions in which may be found illustrations of the applications of the rule, are there cited.

Bonebrake v. McCormick

35 Cal. 2d 16 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1950

Proc., § 1870, subd. 2; Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 26 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 160 P.2d 21 ]; Card v. … (Brown v. McCuan, 56 Cal.App.2d 35, 36 [ 132 P.2d 838 ].) When so considered, it appears that all necessary elements for the application of the doctrine are present. (See Girdner v.

Bryan v. Berry

8 Cal. 130 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

Greenup et al. v. Brown; Baird v. … In the case of Day et al. v. Graham, (1 Gil. R., 435,) this question is very fully considered, the authorities reviewed and the correct doctrine laid down.