Case law

Forbes v. Reilly

57 Cal. 302 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

.: The decree in the action, Alexander Forbes v. George Turner, James Reilly, Thomas H. Selby, Mayor, etc., and the City and County of San Francisco, must be read in connection with the pleadings. … In Forbes v. Turner et al., it was decreed that the mayor should convey the city title directly to Forbes.

Campbell v. Santa Maria Oil & Gas Co.

153 Cal. 282 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1908

It is sufficient to rei fer to the cases of Martin v. Burns Wine Co., 99 Cal. 357 , [ 33 Pac. 1107 ] ; Macon and Augusta R. R. Co. v. Vason, 57 Ga. 314 ; Kansas City Hotel Co. v. … (Kessler v. Ensley Co., 123 Fed. 559 ; Union Dime Savings Bank v. Wilmot, 94 N. Y. 228 , [ 46 Am. Rep. 137 ].)

Neale v. Head

133 Cal. 42 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1901

The corporation and its stockholders are primarily liable for the company’s debts. *46 (Morrow v. Superior Court, 64 Cal. 383 .) … (Brandt on Suretyship, 2d ed., secs. 93, 254; Miller v. Steward, 9 Wheat. 680, 702, 703 ; Tomlinson v. Simpson, 33 Minn. 443, 446 ; Independent District v. Reichard, 50 Iowa, 98 .) It was held in In re California Mut.

Morenhaut v. Wilson

52 Cal. 263 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

(Richardson v. McNulty, 24 Cal. 345 ; Bell v. Bed Rock T. & M. Co. 36 Cal. 215 .) *268 2. There is no direct finding of the fact of a forfeiture of the claims by the plaintiffs. … In the case of Bell v. Brown, ( 22 Cal. 681 ) expressions were used seemingly at variance with the doctrine here announced.

Lisenby v. Newton

120 Cal. 571 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1898

(Champion v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 398 ; 10 Am. Dec. 343 ; Civ. Code, sec. 1461, et seq; see Fresno etc. Co. v. Rowell, 80 Cal. 114 ; 13 Am. St. … Code, sec. 1559; Chung Kee v. Davidson, 73 Cal. 522 .) Section 1589 of the Civil Code, cited by appellant, is not involved here. (Stone v. Owens, 105 Cal. 292 .) The judgment should be affirmed.

Leese v. Clark

20 Cal. 387 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1862

(See Dewey v. Gray, 2 Cal. 377 ; Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Id. 687; Gunter v. Laffan, 7 Id. 592; and Davidson v. Dallas, 15 Id. 82.) Hor is the doctrine peculiar to this Court. … As we said in Teschemacher v.

Jefferson v. Hewitt

103 Cal. 624 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1894

Code, sec. 2332; Bierce v. Red *630 Bluff Hotel Co., 31 Cal. 165 ; 1 Morawetz on Private Corporations, 2d ed., secs. 540 b, 540 c. … The facts of the case in this regard are very similar to those in Billings v. Everett, 52 Cal. 661 .

Wolfskill v. County of Los Angeles

86 Cal. 405 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1890

On the 8th of February, a petition Avas received by the board concerning the same, and in due course was acted upon by the board. … But the case now under consideration is very different from that of People v. Reed .

People v. Moroney

24 Cal. 2d 638 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1944

(See Bacich v. Board of Control, 23 Cal.2d 343 [ 144 P.2d 818 ]; California Securities Co. v. State, 111 Cal.App. 258 [ 295 P. 583 ].) … (County Board of Education v. Fiscal Court, 221 Ky. 106 [ 298 S.W. 185 ].)

Beard v. Beard

16 Cal. 2d 645 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1940

(Brooks v. Nelson, supra; Nickerson v. California Raisin Co., 61 Cal. 268; Greenamyer v. Board of Lugo E. S. District, 116 Cal. App. 319 [ 2 Pac. (2d) 848 ] ; Doyle v. Rice Ranch Oil Co., 28 Cal. … (Janson v. Bryant, 52 Cal. App. 505 [ 199 Pac. 542 ]; Nickerson v. California Raisin Co., supra; Greenamyer v. Board of Lugo E. S. District, supra; Ross v. San Diego Glazed C. P. Co., 50 Cal.

City of Los Angeles v. Young

118 Cal. 295 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1897

Whitney v. San Francisco Fire Dept., 14 Cal. 479 .) … Bnt it may be set down as a universal rule that, as the province of the writ of certiorari is to review a record of an inferior conrt, board, or tribunal, and to determine from the record whether such court, board, or tribunal

People v. Cordova

62 Cal. 4th 104 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 2015

Defendant relies primarily on Brown v. Farwell (9th Cir. 2008) 525 F.3d 787, reversed sub nomine McDaniel v. … California (1990) 494 U.S. 370 and People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 (Brown). To obtain sufficient jurors, the court examined three panels of prospective jurors.

Hizar v. State Bar

20 Cal. 2d 223 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1942

This is a proceeding to review the recommendation of the Board of Governors of The State Bar recommending disbarment. Petitioner, J. C. … (Carlson v. Murphy, 8 Cal. App. (2d) 607 [ 47 P. (2d) 1100 ].) In 1939 Walden was declared a bankrupt.

In re Brown

62 Cal. 2d 902 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1965

In People v. Brown, ante, p. 901 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 399 P.2d 373 ], filed this day/ it is concluded that petitioner is entitled to appeal. No other basis appears for issuance of the writ.

Goncalves v. Los Banos Mining Co.

58 Cal. 2d 916 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1962

Allen v. Robinson, 85 Cal.App.2d 617, 620-621 [ 193 P.2d 498 ]; Browne v. Fernandez, 140 Cal.App. 689, 692-693, 697 [ 36 P.2d 122 ].) … (Winn v. Ferguson, 132 Cal.App.2d 539, 541 [ 282 P.2d 515 ] [driver distracted by her 21-month-old child]; Flannery v.

Bellus v. City of Eureka

69 Cal. 2d 336 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1968

(Kern v. City of Long Beach (1947) 29 Cal.2d 848, 852 ; Dryden v. Board of Pension Comrs. (1936) 6 Cal.2d 575, 579 [ 59 P.2d 104 ].) … (See Klench v. Board of Pension Fund Comrs., supra, 79 Cal.App. 171, 189 .)

Jacobs v. the State Bar

219 Cal. 59 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1933

The findings of the committee were adopted by the board. … The petitioner on the record herein has failed to meet the burden devolving upon him to show that the board’s -decision is erroneous or unlawful. (Aydelotte v.

Sheffield v. State Bar of Cal.

22 Cal. 2d 627 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1943

A reasonable construction of it, said this court in Galbraith v. … And the court also declared, adopting-its statement in Wutchumna Water Co. v.

Pencovic v. Pencovic

45 Cal. 2d 97 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1955

Webber, 33 Cal.2d 153, 160 [ 199 P.2d 934 ] ; Eidenmuller v. Eidenmuller, 37 Cal. 364, 366 ; Tompkins v. … A member of the board of directors usually accompanies him on trips and handles temporal matters.

Lassen Municipal Utility District v. Hopper

5 Cal. 2d 18 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1935

The petitioning district, a public corporation (Morrison v. … The “short term notes” issued by the board of water and power commissioners of the city of Los Angeles, and the subject of consideration by this court in Shelton v.