Case law

Pleasants v. North Beach & Mission Railroad

34 Cal. 586 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

. : The facts of this case are that the female plaintiff, (who is a woman of color,) being desirous to take passage on one of the street cars of defendant, hailed the Conductor and requested him to take her on board; that … In Turner v. North Beach and Mission Bailroad Company, decided at the present term, we have passed upon the chief points involved in this appeal. The damages were excessive.

Kinlaw v. State of California

54 Cal. 3d 326 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1991

As in Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 439 [ 261 Cal. … An example is the Brown-Presley Trial Court Funding Act (Gov.

Hull v. Superior Court

63 Cal. 179 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1883

Prohibition is not available as a remedy to prevent the acts of a de facto or de jure ministerial officer (People v. Board of Election, 54 Cal. 404; Le Conte v. … (Hull v. Superior Court, ante.) Demurrer sustained and writ dismissed.

People v. Stevens

62 Cal. 4th 325 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 2015

We therefore disapprove People v. … Name of Opinion People v.

Mathewson v. Fitch

22 Cal. 86 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

In the case of Train v. … To the same, effect is the case of Lousdale v. Brown ( 4 Wash. 148 ).

People v. Chessman

38 Cal. 2d 166 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1951

We note that the facts of the Brown case differ from those of defendant’s case in that Brown actually struck his victim as well as raping her, but we hold that the rule of the Brown case is equally applicable here. … Brown (1947), supra, 29 Cal. 2d 555, 558 [defendant abducted a woman, raped her, then took her watch and automobile ; in the language of People v.

Nordyke v. King

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 761 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 2002

Dissenting Opinion by BROWN, J. … (See, e.g., Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 292 , 219 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d 840 .)

Allen v. State Bar

36 Cal. 2d 683 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1951

The Board of Governors approved the committee’s findings but recommended 60 days’ suspension. … The case is closely analogous to Hollinan v.

Hudepohl v. Liberty Hill Consolidated Mining & Water Co.

80 Cal. 553 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1889

(Bernal v. Hovious, 17 Cal. 545 ; 79 Am. Dec. 147 ; Smyth v. Tankersley, 20 Ala. 212 ; 56 Am. Dec. 193 ; Ponder v. Rhea, 32 Ark. 435 ; Somers v. Joyce, 40 Conn. 592 ; Scott v. Ramsey, 82 Ind. 330 ; Dinehart v. … Code, sec. 1965; Crowley v. Genessee Mining Co., 55 Cal. 273 ; Gardenhire v. Smith, 39 Ark. 280 ; Jeter v. Penn, 28 La. Ann. 230 ; 26 Am. Rep. 98 ; Adams v. McKesson’s Ex’r, 53 Pa. St. 81; 91 Am. Dec. 183 ; Hay v.

Ex parte Seube

115 Cal. 629 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1897

In this case the language of the ordinance differs from that of the ordinance construed in Merced County v. … But, even if we were to look to section 4 alone, the petitioner could claim nothing from the doctrine stated by Lord Cairns in Partington v. Attorney General, L. R. 4 H. L. Gas. 122, as quoted in Merced County v.

Honoroff v. State Bar

50 Cal. 2d 202 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1958

State Bar, 39 Cal.2d 161, 165 [ 246 P.2d 1 ]), petitioner has the burden of showing wherein the decision of the board is erroneous or unlawful. (Tonini v. State Bar, 46 Cal.2d 491, 492-493 [ 297 P.2d 1 ] ; Alkow v. … Clark v. State Bar, supra, 39 Cal.2d 161, 174 .)

People v. McGuire

32 Cal. 140 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

For the purpose of canvassing the returns the Board are required to convene on the tenth day after the election. (Sec. *142 6.) … (Dobbins v. The Board of Supervisors of Yuba County, 5 Cal. 414 .)

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.

Yount v. Howell

14 Cal. 465 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

(Poston v. Jones, 2 Dev. & Bat. 294 ; Whittington et al. v. Christian et al. 2 Rand. 353; Doe v. Dupey, 4 Marsh, 389; Chiral v. Reinicker, 11 Wheat. 280 ; Dewey v. Osborn, 4 Cowen, 329.) … (Polk’s Lessee v. Wendall et al. 9 Cranch, 98 ; Norvell v. Cram, et al. 6 Mumford, 237; Patterson v. Winn et al. 11 Wheat. 380 ; Cook’s Lessee v. Carrol, 6 Md. 112 ; Parker v. Claiborne, 2 Swan, 571 .)

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.

City Street Improvement Co. v. Rontet

140 Cal. 55 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1903

Co. v. Laird, 138 Cal. 27 , the provision of the statute as to protests here invoked does not apply to such work. … We will notice also appellant’s point that the assess- " ment was void because there was no signature to the “bid” presented to the board by the respondent.

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.

Staniford v. Trombly

181 Cal. 372 · California Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1919

This case greatly resembles in its facts (except those pertaining to estoppel) Grants Pass Land and Water Co. v. Brown, 168 Cal. 456 , [ 143 Pac. 754 ]. … (Bigelow on Estoppel (edition of 1913), 603 et seq.; Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279-367; Stanley v. Green, 12 Cal. 148; Grants Pass Land and Water Co. v.