Case law

Jost v. King

166 Cal. 394 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1913

(Paola Gas Co. v. Paola Glass Co., 56 Kan. 622 , [ 54 Am. St. Rep. 598 , 44 Pac. 621 ] ; Hunt Brothers Co. v. San Lorenzo Water Co., 150 Cal. 55 , [7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 913, 87 Pac. 1093 ]; Pendleton v. … Cline, 85 Cal. 143 , [ 24 Pac. 659 ] ; Witmer Brothers Co. v. Weid, 108 Cal. 580 , [ 41 Pac. 491 ].)

Greene v. Superior Court

55 Cal. 2d 403 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1961

(City of San Diego v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.2d 483, 486-487 [ 224 P.2d 685 ]; Barlow v. City Council of the City of Englewood, 32 Cal.2d 688, 692-693 [ 197 P.2d 721 ]; Bowman v. … Bowman, 29 Cal.2d 808, 814-815 [ 178 P.2d 751 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]; Phillips v. Trusheim, 25 Cal.2d 913, 916 [ 156 P.2d 25 ]; Bastajian v. Brown, 19 Cal.2d 209, 214 [ 120 P.2d 9 ]; Eoltum v.

Larkin v. Mullen

128 Cal. 449 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1900

(Harnish v. Bramer, 71 Cal. 155 ; Mendenhall v. Paris, 84 Cal. 193 ; Amestoy v. Elec *454 iric Rapid Transit Co., 95 Cal. 311 ; Bliss v. Sneath, 103 Cal. 43 ; Mullally v. Townsend, 119 Cal. 47 . See, also, Place v. … Mullen is entitled to a reasonable compensation for the care of the plaintiff during his sickness, and for his board; and in its judgment, after directing the defendants to execute a deed to the plaintiff, directs that he

White v. McLaughlin

155 Cal. 333 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1900

The complaint in James v. … (Stats. 1895, p. 46; People v. Davis, 143 Cal. 673, 677 , [ 77 Pac. 651 ]; People v. Temple, 103 Cal. 447, 453 , [ 37 Pac. 414 ]; Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391, 404 , [ 94 Am. Dec. 742 ].)

LeBreton v. Superior Court of San Francisco

66 Cal. 27 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1884

In the case of Massie v. … In the case of Black v.

MacNicol v. E. Coalinga Oil Fields Corp.

22 Cal. 2d 742 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1943

He also relies on Allan v. … v.

Ex parte Miller

82 Cal. 454 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1890

The principal ground of the application is, that the petitioner, upon a trial for a violation of an ordinance of the board of supervisors of Sutter County, was by the justice’s court denied a jury, and upon a trial by the … Law Mag. 789 et seq.; Ex parte Brandon, 45 Ark. 143 ; Tormey v. Barr, 75 Iowa, 758 ; Zelle v. McHenry, 51 Iowa, 572 ; Kelly v. People, 115 Ill. 583 ; 56 Am. Rep. 184 .)

City of Compton v. Boland

26 Cal. 2d 310 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1945

In Miller v. … In Miller v.

Heathman v. Holmes

94 Cal. 291 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1892

The part of the building leased by her was used by her as a boarding and lodging house. Two witnesses — the said Mrs. Kelly and one J. A. … (Ackley v. Chamberlain, 16 Cal. 181 ; 76 Am. Dec. 516 ; Skinner v. Hall, 69 Cal. 195 ; Lubbock v. McMann, 82 Cal. 226; 16 Am. St. Rep. 108 .) In other states this rule has been very broadly stated. In Phelps v.

County of Yolo v. Barney

79 Cal. 375 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1889

(People v. Pope, 53 Cal. 450 ; Visalia v. Jacob, 65 Cal. 436 ; 52 Am. Rep. 303 .) *380 The question then recurs, Did the board of supervisors, acting for the county, apply this land to a public use ? … {Hoadley v. San Francisco, supra; People v. Pope, supra.) *381 In reference to dedications to public use, it was said by the supreme court of the United States in City of Cincinnati v.

Valentine v. Stewart

15 Cal. 387 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

Brooks with the case of Charles White v. … The cases of Coleman v. Sarrel (1 Vesey, Jr. 51, and 14 Ark. R. 376) and Viser v. Bertrand are in point. The case of Abbe v.

Ezekial v. Winkley

20 Cal. 3d 267 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1977

Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 481 P.2d 242 ]; Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners (1968) 68 Cal.2d 67, 75 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 435 P.2d 553 ]) or by a private entity (see Anton v. … (Cf., Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].)

Herron v. State Farm Mutual Insurance

56 Cal. 2d 202 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1961

(Sp eegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters, 29 Cal.2d 34, 39 [172 P.2d 867]; Freed v. Manchester Service, Inc., 165 Cal.App.2d 186, 188 [ 331 P.2d 689 ].) … Board of Trade of San Francisco, 119 Cal.App.2d 738, 742-743 [ 260 P.2d 205 ]; see Rest., Torts, § 767; Prosser on Torts [2d ed. 1955], pp. 735 *207 et seq. ) Justification is an affirmative defense and may not be considered

Braxton v. Municipal Court

10 Cal. 3d 138 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1973

Board of Regents of University of Arizona (9th Cir. 1970) 436 F.2d 618 ; Jacobs v. Board of School Com’rs of City of Indianapolis (S.D.Ind. 1972) 349 F.Supp. 605 . 10 James v. … Both courts (Williams v. Dade County School Board (5th Cir. 1971) 441 F.2d 299, 301 ; Gardenhire v.

Large v. Diercken

198 Cal. 103 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1926

(Brown v. Clark, 77 N. Y. 369 ; see, also, In re Kaufman, 131 N. Y. 620 [15 L. R. A. 292, 30 N. E. 242 ]; Matter of McLarney, 153 N. Y. 416 [ 60 Am. St. Rep. 664 , 47 N. E. 817 ].) … v.

Ex Parte Karlson

160 Cal. 378 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1911

The supreme court of Ohio in Brown v. … The correctness of the view stated in Brown v. State, 11 Ohio, 277, will not, I think, be doubted. Is it not applicable in California ?

California Employment Commission v. Butte County Rice Growers Ass'n

25 Cal. 2d 624 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1944

Duys & Co., Inc. v. Tone, 125 Conn. 300 [ 5 A.2d 23 ].) … (Great Western Mushroom Co. v. Industrial Commission (1938), 103 Colo. 39 [ 82 P.2d 751 ]; H. Duys & Co., Inc. v. Tone (1939), 125 Conn. 300 [ 5 A.2d 23 ]; Park Floral Co. v.

Central Pacific Ry. Co. v. Feldman

152 Cal. 303 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1907

Co. v. … Co. v. Neale, 88 Cal. 50, 62 , [ 25 Pac. 977 ]; Santa Ana v. Harlin, 99 *311 Cal. 536, 545, [ 34 Pac. 224 ].)

Country of Plumas v. Wheeler

149 Cal. 758 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1906

Thus, in Philadelphia v. Western Union Tel. … Erro, 119 Cal. 119 , [51 Pac. 32]; Mono County v.

People v. Bolin

75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1998

{People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 446-448 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].) … First, the court did not give the “unadorned” Brown instruction (People v.