Case law

Ellis v. Witmer

134 Cal. 249 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1901

(Meuser v. Risdon, 36 Cal. 239 ; Chase v. Treasurer etc., 122 Cal. 545 ; Donnelly v. Tilman, 47 Cal. 40 ; Donnelly v„ Marks, 47 Cal. 187 ; City of Napa v. Easterly, 61 Cal. 509 .) … (Esterbrook v. O'Brien, 98 Cal. 671 ; Quint v. Hoffman, 103 Cal. 506 ; Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 137 ; Weber v. San Francisco, 1 Cal. 455 .)

Western Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Orange County Air Pollution Control District

14 Cal. 3d 411 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1975

In Clean Air Constituency v. … It follows from the foregoing analysis that we disapprove Environmental Defense Fund v.

Matter of Application of Lieritz

166 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1913

was an election held in the fifth supervisorial district of Orange County, whereby the question of license or no license was submitted to the voters and that a majority of the votes cast not being in favor of license, the board … (Ex parte Hornef, 154 Cal. 360 , [ 97 Pac. 891 ]; Hogan v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. App. 793 , [ 117 Pac. 947 ]; People v. Priestley, 17 Cal. App. 176 , [ 118 Pac. 965 ].)

Ex parte Smith & Keating

38 Cal. 702 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

“The Board of Trustees of the City of Sacramento ordain as follows : “Section 1. … (Smith v. Judge Twelfth Judicial District, 17 Cal. 554; French v. Teschemacher, 24 Id. 544; Bourland v. Hildreth, 26 Id. 256; Brooks v. Hyde, 37 Cal. 366 .)

Pacific Paving Co. v. Reynolds

6 Cal. Unrep. 535 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1900

No other resolution or action of the board was taken, but after the expiration of six months from the date of filing of said protest it passed a resolution ordering the work to be done. … Under the prin *536 ciples declared in City Street Improvement Co. v.

Wren v. Wren

100 Cal. 276 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1893

This same question arose in the case of Riley v. Mitch ell, 36 Minn. 3 . … the husband make a gift to his wife of his interest in what should be paid by Welsh for such board in the future.

Rousset v. Reay

60 Cal. 328 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1882

(McCreery v. Sawyer, 52 Cal. 257 ; Le Roy v. Cunningham, 44 id. 609; Kraft v. Driscoll, 1 P. O. L. J. 24.) … Paul Rousset et al. v. J. W. Reay et al., No. 6984; Theodore Lieberman v. J. W. Reay et al., No. 6983 ; Simon Held v. J. W. Reay et al., No. 6984; William Thurmauer v. J. W. Reay et al., No. 6985; E. S. Freeman v. J. W.

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.

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.

People ex rel. Miller v. Davie

114 Cal. 363 · California Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1896

This is an investigation instituted in the name of the people, in the nature of quo warranto, to test the title to office of the present" board of public works of the city of Oakland, said board consisting of three commissioners … In People 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 ].)

People Ex Rel. Scholler v. City of Long Beach

155 Cal. 604 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1909

(Huston v. Anderson, supra.) … The decision in People v.

Miller v. Dale

44 Cal. 562 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

In Leese v. … In Minturn v.

Henkel v. J. J. Henkel Co.

212 Cal. 288 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1931

The plaintiff entered the employ of the defendant as its general manager and so served the defendant up to December 5, 1925, when he was discharged by a new board *290 of directors elected on that day. … (See Conrad v. Ellison-Harvey Co., 120 Va. 458 [Ann. Cas. 1918B, 1171, 91 S. E. 763 ] ; Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Hutchison, 177 Ky. 757 [L. R. A. 1918C, 704, 198 S. W. 17 ] ; Chamberlain v.

Dranga v. Rowe

127 Cal. 506 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1900

In San Diego v. … In Kittle v.

People v. Perris Irrigation District

142 Cal. 601 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1904

It may even be admitted that it is conclusive evidence so long as it stands unimpeached, as stated *606 in People v. Linda Vista Irrigation Dist., 128 Cal. 477 , and People v. … Co. v. Wells, 54 Am. St. Rep. 245 ; Curtis v. Schell, 129 Cal. 211 ; 1 Lapham v. Campbell, 61 Cal. 298 ; Dunlap v.

Smith v. Westerfield

88 Cal. 374 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1891

(Brown v. Southworth, 9 Paige, 351 ; Scholes v. Ackerland, 13 Ill. 650 ; Strayer v. Wilson, 54 Iowa, 565 ; Denny v. Horton, 11 Daly, 361 ; Patterson v. Railway Company, 54 Mich. 91 .) In Brown v. … In Scholes v. Acherland, 13 Ill. 650 , a commission had been issued to take the testimony of Seymour Rank of Cincinnati.

Regan v. County of San Mateo

14 Cal. 2d 713 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1939

Const.; Smith v. Mathews, 155 Cal. 752 [ 103 Pac. 199 ]; Galeener v. Honeycutt, 173 Cal. 100 [ 159 Pac. 595 ]; Keith v. Ramsey, 34 Cal. App. 340 [ 167 Pac. 408 ] ; Applestill v. Gary, 18 Cal. … The case of Applestill v.

Mundell v. City of Pasadena

87 Cal. 520 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1891

His compensation for both terms was fixed by the board of trustees of the city at eight hundred dollars per year, and was paid. … In Pritchett v. Stanislaus County, 73 Cal. 310 , the plaintiff was marshal of the city of Modesto, a city of the sixth class, in the county of Stanislaus.

Californians for an Open Primary v. McPherson

43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 315 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 2006

Dist. v. State Board of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 222 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 ].) … (See, e.g., Brosnahan v.