Case law

Goldberg v. Bloch

39 Cal. 2d 570 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1952

Stephen Brown Julius J Bloch shall not receive a dower right or be allowed to contest my wishes in any court in the United States. … (Marks v. Walter G. McCarty Corp., 33 Cal.2d 814, 820-821 [ 205 P.2d 1025 ]; McNear v. Petroleum Export Corp., 208 Cal. 162, 167-168 [ 280 P. 684 ] [citing probate eases].)

Carleton v. Townsend

28 Cal. 219 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1865

Notes, 606 ; Thompson v. Manrow, 1 Cal. 428 ; Mott v. Smith, 16 Cal. 554 ; Jackson v. Boneham, 15 Johns. 226 .) … (Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 612 ; Holladay v. Frisbie, Id. 630 ; San Francisco v. Beideman, 17 Cal. 443 ; Hubbard v. Sullivan, 18 Cal. 508 ; Board of Education v. Fowler, 19 Cal. 11 ; Wolf v. Baldwin, Id. 306; Hubbard v.

McCordic v. Crawford

23 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1943

The Loopa was somewhat like an old-fashioned swing, with a board suspended by steel rods from an axle some fifteen or twenty feet above the ground. … It was so constructed that riders standing on the board could cause the swing to make a complete circle around the axle. The feet of the riders were strapped to the board and their shoulders to the steel rods.

McCracken v. City of San Francisco

16 Cal. 591 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

v. … In Head and Amory v.

People v. McKay

37 Cal. 2d 792 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1951

Judge Ross wrote the board of supervisors that the claim should not be paid. … (People v.

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.

Kelly v. State Bar

45 Cal. 3d 649 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1988

(See, e.g., Rimel v. … In Kitsis , we noted that the Board oversees various local committees and boards, amongst which the investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative functions are divided.

Whitehead-Donovan Corp. v. Herald Publishing Co.

62 Cal. 2d 185 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1964

(Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage etc. Appeals Board, supra, 61 Cal.2d 305, 310 .) … (Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Cal.2d 228, 233 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 368 P.2d 101 ] ; Werner v. Southern Cal. etc.

Williams v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority

68 Cal. 2d 599 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1968

Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Diskin (1967) 255 Cal. App.2d 502, 510 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 177 ].) Frost v. … rejection thereof by such Board.”

Tait v. Hall

71 Cal. 149 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1886

That the said strip of land above described has never been laid out or erected as a road or public highway by order of the board of supervisors, and has never become a public road by use or dedication by any owner of said … (Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 642 .) There was no error in permitting the witness A. J.

Shipley v. Jordan

206 Cal. 439 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1929

said Board of Trustees of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and its successors, for the following eleemosynary purposes, namely: to build, construct, equip and maintain a public library building and to conduct and maintain … (Goad v. Montgomery, 119 Cal. 552, 557 [ 63 Am. St. Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ].) There seems to be some uncertainty as to whether or not the will was actually admitted in evidence.

Raisch v. Myers

27 Cal. 2d 773 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1946

Improvements, in the office of said Board of Public Works.” … (Woods v. Hyde, 64 Cal.App. 433 [ 222 P. 168 ]; Griffith Co. v. Kelly, 52 Cal.

Wheeler v. County of Plumas

149 Cal. 782 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1906

(Napa State Hospital v. Flaherty, 134 Cal. 315 , [ 66 Pac. 322 ]; City of Sonora v. Curtin, 137 Cal. 583 , [ 70 Pac. 674 ]; Town of Santa Monica v. Guidinger, 137 Cal. 658 , [ 70 Pac. 732 ].) … In Osborne v. Robbins, 36 N.

Carr v. River & Eureka Railroad

21 L.R.A. 354 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 1893

Such was the case of Filer v. New York C. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 47 ; 10 Am. … (See also Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Miles, 88 Ala. 256 ; Nichols v. Dubuque & Dakota R’y Co., 68 Iowa, 732 ; Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 123 Ind. 422 ; 18 Am. S±. Rep. 330.)

Hernandez v. Municipal Court

49 Cal. 3d 713 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1989

In People v. … The two cases relied on by the Jones majority—Alvarado v. State (Alaska 1971) 486 P.2d 891 and State of Maryland v. Brown (D.Md. 1969) 295 F.Supp. 63—are not controlling.

Hughes v. Wheeler

76 Cal. 230 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 1888

(Robinson v. W. P. R. R. Co., 48 Cal. 424, 425 .) The other instructions complained of are correct. *234 (Sneed v. Osborn, 25 Cal. 619 ; Columbet v. Pacheco, 48 Cal. 395 ; Biggins v. … Champlin, 59 Cal. 116 , 117; Truett v. Adams, 66 Cal. 223 ; Johnson v. Brown, 63 Cal. 393 ; 2 Hermann on Estoppel, secs. 1129-1136.)

Martin v. County of Santa Barbara

105 Cal. 208 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1894

(Black’s Law Dictionary, title Salary; Cowdin v. Huff, 10 Ind. 85 .) … While the term salary in its original and strict sense signifies a fixed compensation it is frequently used in our constitution and laws as the equivalent of compen sation, In Kirkwood v.

Springer v. Springer

126 Cal. 452 · California Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1899

(See, also, Carey v. Brown, 58 Cal. 185 ; Forni v. Yoell, 95 Cal. 442 ; 99 Cal. 173 .) The facts of the present case are within the principles there determined, and upon the authority of that case the motion is •denied.

County of Trinity v. County of Mendocino

151 Cal. 279 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1907

(Sutherland on Statutes [1st ed.], secs. 157, 158 ; People v. Quigg, 59 N. Y. 88 ; Anderson v. Hill, 42 N. J. L. 351 ; Vail v. Easton, 44 N. J. L. 239 ; State v. Mills, 34 N. J. L. 180 ; People v. Palmer, 52 N. … Y. 88 ; Crane v. Reeder, 22 Mich. 322 ; Robbins v. State, 8 Ohio St. 191 .)

In Re Marriage of Morrison

20 Cal. 3d 437 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1978

(Becker v. Becker, 64 Cal.App.2d 239, 242 [ 148 P.2d 381 ].)” (Hall v. Hall, supra, 42 Cal.2d at p. 442 .) … Brown, Sr.) The Family Law Act does not use the term “alimony.”