Case law

County of Los Angeles v. La Fuente

20 Cal. 2d 870 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1942

Garrison, 194 Cal. 298 [ 228 Pac. 433 ] [street improvements]; Allied Architects’ Assn. v. Payne, 192 Cal. 431 [ 221 Pac. 209 , 30 A. L. R. 1029] [erection of memorial hall for war veterans]; Veterans’ Welfare Board v. … Ed. 940 ]; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678 [ 8 S. Ct. 992, 1257 , 32 L. Ed. 253 ]; Veterans’ Welfare Board v. Riley, supra; Daggett v. Colgan, 92 Cal. 53 [ 28 Pac. 51 , 27 Am. St. Rep. 95 , 14 L. R. A. 474].)

Otis v. Haseltine

27 Cal. 80 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

In Jones v. … (Church v. Brown, 21 N. Y. 315 .) Judgment affirmed.

In Re Kimler

37 Cal. 2d 568 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1951

Brown, Attorneys General, B. Abbott Goldberg and Clarence A. Linn, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent. EDMONDS, J. … In State v.

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.

People Ex Rel. Skelly v. City of Glendale

40 Cal. 2d 732 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1953

SKELLY, Appellant, v. CITY OF GLENDALE, Respondent. L. A. No. 22500. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. Apr. 24, 1953. Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, Kenny & Morris, Edward J. Skelly in pro. per., and Robert W. … (See Stumpf v. Board of Supervisors (1901), 131 Cal. 364, 368 [ 63 P. 663 , 82 Am.St.Rep. 350 ]; People ex rel. McKune v. John B. Weller (1858), 11 Cal. 49, 62 [70 Am.Dec. 754].)

Pacific Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Dalton

119 Cal. 604 · California Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1898

(Merrill v. Humphrey, 24 Mich. 170 ; Lefferts v. Board of Supervisors, 21 Wis. 688 ; Milwaukee Iron Co. v. Hubbard, 29 Wis. 51 .)” … In Lefferts v. Board of Supervisors, supra, where the supreme court of Wisconsin held that the lower court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, the averments were substantially like those in the case at bar.

Willis v. Santa Ana Community Hospital Ass'n

58 Cal. 2d 806 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1962

(Guillory v. Godfrey, 134 Cal.App.2d 628, 632 [ 286 P.2d 474 ] ; Masoni v. Board of Trade of S. F., 119 Cal.App.2d 738, 741 [ 260 P.2d 205 ] ; see Rest., Torts, § 766, cl. (b); cf. Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary Sch. … (Freed v. Manchester Service, Inc., 165 Cal.App.2d 186, 190-191 [ 331 P.2d 689 ] ; Masoni v. Board of Trade of S. F., supra, 119 Cal.App.2d 738, 742 ; see Rest., Torts, § 767.)

Eggert v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.

20 Cal. 2d 199 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1942

(Elliott v. Superior Court, 144 Cal. 501 [ 77 Pac. 1109 , 103 Am. St. Rep. 102 ]; Braun v. … Brown, 13 Cal. (2d) 130 [ 87 P. (2d) 1009 ]; (Estate of McDermott, 127 Cal. 450 [ 59 Pac. 783 ]; Estate of Crooks, 125 Cal. 459 [ 58 Pac. 89 ]; Altpeter v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 22 Cal.

People v. Famalaro

52 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2011

She removed the board so the lab could conduct further testing on it. e. … (People v. Hamilton (2009) 45 Cal.4th 863, 925-926; People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1066; People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 395-396; see also People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 835.)

Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc.

54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 735 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 2007

(See Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries (1994) 7 Cal.4th 926, 931 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 440 , 873 P.2d 613 ]; Brown v. Bleiberg (1982) 32 Cal.3d 426, 433-36 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 651 P.2d 815 ].) … (Soliman, supra, 311 F.3d at p. 973 ; see also Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Lyle v. Rollins

25 Cal. 437 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

(Rico v. Spence, 21 Cal. 511 .) In Van *438 Winkle v. … He occupied it when this suit was commenced. ■* * * The house was ten by twenty-eight, boarded up and clapboarded over. * * * The fence of 1861 was of two boards.

Sherman v. Buick

32 Cal. 241 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

(Metcalf v. Bingham, 3 N. H. 459; Allen v. Stevens, 29 New Jersey L. R. 509; Brewer v. Bowman, 9 Geo. 37; Harvey v. Thomas, 10 Watts, 63 ; Pocopson Road, 16 Penn. State R. 15 ; Hays v. Risher, 32 Penn. State. R. 169.) … It does not appear from the answer that this was done, nor does it appear that the appellant complied with the order of the Board of Supervisors in respect to gates.

Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Industrial Accident Commission

194 Cal. 660 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1924

if he was ready to fix the ridge board and the cross if the pastor had not come; that when Ed. … (Bargewell v. Daniel, 98 L. T. R. 257; Kelly v. Buchanan, 13 Compensation L. R. 729, 47 Ir. L. T.; McCann v. McDonnell, note to Kelly v. Buchanan, supra; State ex rel. Lennon v.

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.

Bastjan v. Bastjan

215 Cal. 662 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1932

Turning again to Morgan v. … See, also, Browne on the Statute of Frauds, 5th ed., sec. 261a; Musick Con. Oil Co. v. Chandler, 158 Cal. 7 [ 109 Pac. 613 ] ; Scott v. Jungquist, 179 Cal. 7 [ 175 Pac. 412 ]; Duryea v. Burt, 28 Cal. 569 .

People v. Sands

4 Cal. Unrep. 424 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1894

The superior court held that said power was vested in the board of supervisors, and gave judgment in favor of the relator, Wood, and defendant Sands appeals therefrom. … In Ex parte Ah You, 82 Cal. 339 , 22 Pac. 929 , it was held that the police court provided for by the freeholders’ charter of the city of Oakland has no legal existence; and in People v.

Green v. State

64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 2007

(Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp. (1999) 526 U.S. 795, 806 [ 143 L.Ed.2d 966 , 119 S.Ct. 1597 ]; see also Jones v. Potter (6th Cir. 2007) 488 F.3d 397, 403 ; Browning v. Liberty Mut. Ins. … (See, e.g., Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., supra, 90 F.3d at pp. 1177-1178; Chandler v. City of Dallas, supra, 2 F.3d at pp. 1389-1390, 1393-1394; see also Rizzo v.

Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton

48 Cal. 4th 481 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2010

Monterey County Water Resources Agency (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 961, 965 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 921 ]; accord, Board of Supervisors v. … (Board of Supervisors, supra, at p. 837.)

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

Streator v. Linscott

153 Cal. 285 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1908

The complaint sets forth at length an order of the board of supervisors prescribing the form of the proposed bonds. … (McCoy v. Bryant, 53 Cal. 247 ; Hopkins v. Lovell, 47 Mo. 102 ; Polly v. Hopkins, 74 Tex. 145 , [ 11 S. W. 1084 ].)