Case law

Morris v. Zuckerman

69 Cal. 2d 686 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1968

(See Grunwald-Marx, Inc. v. Los Angeles Joint Board, 52 Cal.2d 568, 589-590 [ 343 P.2d 23 ].) … (See O’Malley v. Wilshire Oil Co., 59 Cal.2d 482, 490-491 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 452 , 381 P.2d 188 ] (collective bargaining agreement) ; Morris v. Zuclterman, 257 Cal.App.2d 91, 94-97 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 714 ]; *691 Cook v.

Ham v. Grapeland Irrigation District

172 Cal. 611 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1916

(Montgomery v. Tutt, 11 Cal. 307 .) … (Hughson v. Crane, 115 Cal. 415 , [ 47 Pac. 120 ]; Stinson v. Alessandro Irr. Dist., 135 Cal. 389 , [ 67 Pac. 496, 1034 ]; Leeman v. Perris Irr. Dist., 140 Cal. 540 , [ 74 Pac. 24 ].)

Fox v. Townsend

152 Cal. 51 · California Supreme Court · May 13, 1907

(Hurlburt v. Butenop, 27 Cal. 54 ; Braly v. Seaman, 30 Cal. 611 ; People v. S. F. Sav. Union, 31 Cal. 132 ; People v. Hastings, 34 Cal. 571 ; Emerick v. Alvarado, 90 Cal. 444 , [ 27 Pac. 356 ].) … As in Baird v.

California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams

11 Cal. 2d 233 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1938

The cases cited by appellant—California Canning Peach Growers v. Downey, 76 Cal. App. 1 [ 243 Pac. 679 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Harris, 91 Cal. … App. 654 [ 267 Pac. 572 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Bardell & Oregoni, 132 Cal.

Davis v. Mitchell

34 Cal. 81 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

Under this provision it has been held in that State that the right of a defendant in a promissory note may be sold under an execution (Brown v. Anderson, 4 Martin, N. … Co., 6 Robinson, 345 ; Simpson v. Allain, 7 Robinson, 500 ; Fluoker v. Bullard, 2 La. An. 338; Offut v. Monquit, 2 La. An. 875; Taylor v. Stone, 2 La. An. 910; Stockton v. Stanbrough, 3 La. An. 390.) In Adams v.

Rand v. Bossen

27 Cal. 2d 61 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1945

In Tuttle v. … Reliance is placed upon the series of cases including McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U.S. 662 [ 10 S.Ct. 972 , 34 L.Ed. 304 ], and In re Brown, 135 U.S. 662, 701 [ 10 S.Ct. 972 , 34 L.Ed. 304 ].

Calatayud v. State of California

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 202 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 1998

Opinion BROWN, J. Under the common law doctrine known as the firefighter’s rule, the public’s liability is limited. … (See Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 ].) Disposition The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed. George, C.

Pac. Vinegar & Pickle Works v. Smith

152 Cal. 507 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1907

(Triggs v. Jones, 46 Minn. 277 , [ 48 Pac. 1113 ]; St. Mary's Bank v. Calder, 3 Strobb (S. C.) 403; White v. Sanders, 32 Me. 188 ; Goodale v. Middaugh, 8 Colo. App. 223 , [ 46 Pac. 11 ]; Williams v. Moore, 24 Tex. Civ. … (See, also, Scott v. De Peyster, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 513; Wake-man v. Dalley, 51 N. Y. 27 , [10 Am. Rep. 551]; Wallace v. Lincoln Savings Bank, 89 Tenn. 630 , [ 24 Am. St. Rep. 625 , 15 S.

McCurrie v. Southern Pacific Co.

122 Cal. 558 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1898

His wife, testified: “We boarded the train together at Third and Townsend streets. … (See, also, Boyce v. California Stage Co., 25 Cal. 460 ; Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574 ; 13 Am. St. Rep. 175 ; Bush v. Barnett, 96 Cal. 202 ; Judson v. Giant Powder Co., 107 Cal. 549 ; 48 Am. St.

People v. Hastings

29 Cal. 449 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

D. 1863, in the months of April and May of said year, the Board of Trustees are hereby authorized and empowered to levy the annual and special taxes provided in this Act within three days after the first meeting in 1863, … In Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 632 , Mr. Justice Field says: “ In the present case the recitals show that the property was not listed and valued by the Assessor. This is fatal to the deed.

In Re Buckley

10 Cal. 3d 237 · California Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1973

Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 376 (1947). ‘Trial courts . . . must be on guard against confusing offenses to their sensibilities with obstruction to the administration of justice.’ (Brown v. … {Id., quoting Brown v. United States (1958) 356 U.S. 148, 153 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 595 , 78 S.Ct. 622 , 72 A.L.R.2d 818 ].)

Pierce v. Merrill

128 Cal. 473 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1900

We have already held in Pierce v. … (McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 180 ; 95 Am. Dec. 170 ; Biddel v. Brizzolara, 56 Cal. 374 .)

Lawrence v. Doolan

68 Cal. 309 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1885

As we understand the decision of this court in Randall v. … (People v. Edwards, 9 Cal. 292 .)

Brady v. King

53 Cal. 44 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1878

By the Court : The “ resolution of intention ” was fatally defective, and, as a consequence, the Board of .Supervisors did not acquire power or jurisdiction to order the street work done. (Richardson v. … (People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 15 ; People v. Goldtree, 44 Ibid. 323.)

Schulte v. Buben

215 Cal. 172 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1932

(Baird v. Peall, 92 Cal. 235 [ 28 Pac. 285 ]; Schmid v. Busch, 97 Cal. 184 [ 31 Pac. 893 ]). In other jurisdictions under similar statutes the rule is the same. (McMurray v. Brown, 91 U. S. 257, 266 [ 23 L. … Ed. 321 ]; Pierce v. Marple, 148 Pa. 69 [ 33 Am. St. Rep. 808 , 23 Atl. 1008 ]; McLaughlin v. Reinhart, 54 Md. 71 .)

Laforge v. Magee

6 Cal. 285 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

The only important question involved in this case, is the power of the board of supervisors to set apart a portion of the revenue of the county, as a fund for current expenses. … In the case of Thompson v. Rowe, 2 Cal.

Creighton v. Manson

27 Cal. 613 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

We expressed our concurrence in this principle in Curran v. … President of the Board for approval according to the requirements of section sixty-eight of the Consolidation Act.

Gregory v. McPherson

13 Cal. 562 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

If authority were needed to support these plain propositions, they are abundant. (1 Starkie’s Ev. 160—174; Patterson v. Winn, 5 Pet. 239 ; Id. 241 ; U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 728 .) … This very question arose in the case of Bloom v. Burdick, ( 1 Hill, 133 .)

Joseph v. Macowsky

19 L.R.A. 53 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1892

(Browne on Trade-marks, secs. 71, 474; Palmer v. Harris, 60 Pa. St. 156; 100 Am. Dec. 557 ; Fetridge v. Wells, 13 How. Pr. 385 ; Hobbs v. Francais, 19 How. Pr. 571 ; Manhattan Medicine Co. v. Hood, 108 U. S. 218 .) … In Seigert v. Abbott, 61 Md. 284 , 48 Am.

Strouse v. Police Court

85 Cal. 49 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1890

San Francisco, on April 24, 1890, charging the petitioner with a misdemeanor in having transacted and carried on the business of selling meat without having first taken out a license, as required by an ordinance of the board … (Levy v. Wilson, 69 Cal. 105 .) Application for writ denied. Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., Fox, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.