Case law

E.D. & A.L. Stone Co. v. Reilly

158 Cal. 466 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1910

This action was brought by the plaintiff, a property-owner within the limits of the Elmhurst Sanitary District, to enjoin the defendants, members of the sanitary board of said district, from issuing bonds of the district … No. 5575), ante, p. 453, [ 111 Pac. 368 ], and upon the authority of that case it must be held that the sanitary district was dis-0 solved and the powers of its sanitary board terminated upon the annexation of the district

Hansen v. Southern Pacific Co.

105 Cal. 379 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1895

In Townley v. Chicago etc. Ry. … In Railroad Co. v.

Neale v. Morrow

150 Cal. 414 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1907

This case was here on appeal before—Neale v. Head, 133 Cal. 42 , [ 65 Pac. 131, 576 ]—after trial and judgment for the plaintiff. … (Neale v. Head, 133 Cal. 43 -45, [ 65 Pac. 131, 576 ].) Referring now to such provisidns.

Adams v. Adams

29 Cal. 2d 621 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1947

Baxter, 3 Cal.App.2d 676, 681 [ 40 P.2d 536 ]; Brown v. Brown, 83 Cal.App. 74, 82 [ 256 P. 595 ]; McCahan v McCahan, 47 Cal.App. 176, 183 [ 190 P. 460 ].) … (Puckett v. Puckett, supra at p. 837 ; Plummer v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 158, 164 [ 124 P.2d 5 ] ; Lazar v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 617, 622 [ 107 P.2d 249 ] ; Ettlinger v. Ettlinger, supra at p. 177 ; Moran v.

Ballard v. State Bar

35 Cal. 3d 274 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1983

[T]he board shall enroll a member of the State Bar as an inactive member if, after notice and opportunity to be heard before the board or a committee, the board finds that the member, because of mental infirmity or illness … (See Hyland v.

Himmelmann v. Satterlee

50 Cal. 68 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

(See Beaudry v. Valdez, 32 Cal. 276 .) When a street is ordered to be macadamized, it is meant that the roadway only is to be improved. … The board did not, by their resolution of intention, acquire jurisdiction to order work to be performed on the sidewalks, and the contract is void unless the work on the sidewalks can be separated from that performed on the

People v. Burns

75 Cal. 627 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1888

The indictment set forth that on the twelfth day of April, 1887, at the city and county of San Francisco, at a special election called by the board of election commissioners for the purpose of voting for or against the new … (State v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218 .) The allegation as made in the indictment necessarily includes the fact that Emerson’s name was on the precinct register.

J. L. Mott Iron Works v. West Coast Plumbing Supply Co.

113 Cal. 341 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1896

I directed it to the board of trustees of the West Coast Plumbing Supply Company, and I probably put it on the desk there. I don’t know. Q. … The case of Norton v. Atchison etc. R. R. Co., 97 Cal. 388 ; 33 Am. St. Rep. 198 , is not in point.

In Re Richardson

15 Cal. 2d 536 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1940

copy of the record of conviction of Jerome Lyman Richardson, in an action numbered 27812 in the District Court of the United States, in and for the Northern District of New York, entitled, “The United States of America v. … Shafer v. State Bar, 215 Cal. 706 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 957 ].”

Claudius v. Melvin

146 Cal. 257 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1905

(People v. Brown, 113 Cal. 36 ; Ex parte Rosenheim, 83 Cal. 392 ; Anderson v. Parker, 6 Cal. 201 .) … In People v.

People v. Hamilton

48 Cal. 3d 1142 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1989

(E.g., Bonin, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 702; People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 510 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 758 P.2d 1081 ]; People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 456; see People v. … Since on these facts we cannot conclude the court’s mistakes prejudiced defendant (see People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d 432, 462 ; cf. People 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 .)

People v. Howard

16 Cal. 4th 1081 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1997

Gray had cocaine in his pocket, and Brooks had cocaine in a brown coin purse in her pocket. Neither Brooks nor Gray was near the chair on which the officers found the bag of cocaine. … But section 1170(d) specifies that the court is to exercise this authority only "on its own motion, or ... upon the recommendation of the Director of Corrections or the Board of Prison Terms."

Reclamation District No. 1500 v. Superior Court

171 Cal. 672 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1916

(Board of Education v. Martin, 92 Cal. 209 , [ 28 Pac. 799 ] ; People v. Holladay, 93 Cal. 241 , [ 27 Am. St. Rep. 186 , 29 Pac. 54 ] ; Heffner v. Cass and Morgan Counties, 193 Ill. 439 , [58 L. R. A. 353, 62 N. … In Glide v.

Alhambra Addition Water Co. v. Richardson

72 Cal. 598 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1887

But while this doctrine as to the effect of statutes of limitation still obtains with respect to rights resting in contract (McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 184 ; Grant v. … Stockmon, 36 Cal. 540 ; San Francisco v. Fulde, 37 Cal. 352 ; *601 Williams v. Sutton, 43 Cal. 73 ; Sharp v. Blankenship, 59 Cal. 289 ; Johnson v. Brown, 63 Cal. 393 .)

Pacific Telephone Etc. Co. v. Eshleman

166 Cal. 640 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1913

Bush, 40 Cal. 346; Quinchard v. Board of Supervisors 113 Cal. 664 , [ 45 Pac. 856 ] ; Cook v. Civil Service Commission 160 Cal. 589 , [ 117 Pac. 663 ].) Thus in Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. … (Robinson v. Sacramento, 16 Cal. 208 ; Imperial Water Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 162 Cal. 14 , [ 120 Pac. 780 ].)

Ernst v. Ganahl

166 Cal. 493 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1913

Justice Melvin in Brown v. Mason, 155 Cal. 155 , [12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 328, 99 Pac. 867 ]. (See, also, Roper v. Rosenfeld, 145 Cal. 677, 678 , [ 79 Pac. 354 ] ; Sibbald v. Bethlehem etc. Co., 83 N. Y. 378 , [ 38 Am. … (See Brown v. Mason, 155 Cal. 155 , [12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 328, 99 Pac. 867 ]; Sibbald v. Bethlehem etc. Co., 83 *500 N. Y. 378, [ 38 Am. Rep. 441 ].)

Dyer Bros. I. Wks. v. Central I. Wks.

182 Cal. 588 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1920

Co. v. O'Neil, 98 Cal. 1 , 5, [ 32 P. 705 ]; Nakagawa v. Okamoto, 164 Cal. 718 , [ 130 P. 707 ].) … Assn. v.

Kastner v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority

63 Cal. 2d 52 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1965

I concur in the judgment for the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Brown v. Connolly, 62 Cal.2d 391, 398 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 324 , 398 P.2d 596 ],

State Department of Health Services v. Superior Court

6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 441 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 2003

(See Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1059, fn. 4 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 412 , 751 P.2d 470 ].) … J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Brown, J., Moreno, J., concurred. All further section references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.