Case law

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.

Duluz v. Alaska Packers' Assn.

177 Cal. 465 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1918

The board on which I stood was about a foot wide. I was working three days at the vat prior to the accident.” … Third, that no cleats "were nailed on the boards. This, too, must have been as obvious to plaintiff as to his employer.

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 .

Van Every v. Ogg

59 Cal. 563 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1881

injury to defendant by reason of the water leaking through said roof and walk and from time to time said plaintiffs promised to repair said house so as to prevent such leaking, but they failed and neglected to do so. “ V. … J., in Mumford v. Brown, 6 Cow. 475 ; S. C., 16 Am. Dec. 440 .)

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.

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.)

Chamberlain v. Pac. Wool-Growing Co.

54 Cal. 103 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

Defendant offered to prove by the record, that at a meeting of the then trustees, held January 4th, 1876, the Board of Trustees read and reconsidered the proceedings of the meeting of September 25th, 1875, and that so much … Sackett,” are descriptive of the person merely. ( Conner v. Clark, 12 Cal. 168 ; Hall Auburn T. Co. 27 Id. 256 .) The loan was not ratified by the corporation. Two of the trustees voted “ aye,” and two voted “ no.”

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.

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.)

In Re Cardinal

170 Cal. 519 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1915

In Wiggins v. … In Hawthorne v. People, 109 Ill. 302 , [ 50 Am.

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.

Klarfeld v. Berg

29 Cal. 3d 893 · California Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1981

Com. v. Town of Emeryville (1968) 69 Cal.2d 533, 543 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 790 , 446 P.2d 790 ]; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) … (Isobe v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 584, 590 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 376 , 526 P.2d 528 ]; County of Placer v. Aetna Cas. etc. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 182, 188-189 [ 323 P.2d 753 ].)

National Bank of D. O. Mills & Co. v. Herold

74 Cal. 603 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1888

(Wall v. County of Monroe, 103 U. S. 77 .) In Martin v. … (Dana v. San Francisco, 19 Cal. 491 ; People v. Gray, 23 Cal. 127 .) The answer of defendant alleges two grounds of defense: 1. That the warrant was issued without authority of law; 2.

People v. Edelbacher

47 Cal. 3d 983 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1989

(People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 544, fn. 17 .) … (People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 650-651 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 181 , 749 P.2d 836 ]; People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 544, fn. 17 .)

Heilbron v. Heinlen

72 Cal. 376 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1887

(Sharp v. Blankenship, 59 Cal. 288 ; Johnson v. Brown, 63 Cal. 391 .)

Morgan v. Lones

78 Cal. 58 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1888

(Reynolds v. Lounsbury, 6 Hill, 536 ; Moore v. Boyd, 74 Cal. 167 ; Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279 .) The case of Harris v. Harris, 71 Cal. 314 , is not in conflict with this conclusion. … (Smith v. Smith, 12 Cal. 216 ; 73 Am. Dec. 533 ; Meyer v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 247 ; Ramsdell v. Fuller, 28 Cal. 42 ; 87 Am. Dec. 103 .)

Boggs v. North American Bond & Mortgage Co.

6 Cal. 2d 523 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1936

(Wright v. Board of Public Works, 163 Cal. 328 [ 125 Pac. 353 ]; Bernard v. Weaber, 23 Cal. App. 532 [ 138 Pac. 941 ]; 2 Cal. Jur. 125; 14 Cal. Jur. 210.) … Wright v. Board of Public Works, 163 Cal. 328 [ 125 Pac. 353 ], Faria v. Brandon, 206 Cal. 730 [ 276 Pac. 106 ], Shultz v. O’Rourke, 118 Cal. App. 207 [ 4 Pac. (2d) 797 ], and Bernard v.

Ex parte Bohen

115 Cal. 372 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1896

In Tugman v. … In Lake View v.

People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Parvin

74 Cal. 549 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1888

On the twenty-second day of July, 1880, the board of supervisors of Sacramento County, wherein the territory included in Reclamation District No. 3 is situated, by order set apart a portion of such territory as and for a … (Reclamation District No. 3 v. Kennedy, 58 Cal. 124 .) Why should section 3481 of the same code be held to apply to and authorize a division of Eeclamation District No. 3?