Case law

Ramirez v. State Bar

28 Cal. 3d 402 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1980

Review of recommendation of the State Bar Disciplinary Board that petitioner, Glenn D. … Petitioner bears the burden of showing the board’s findings are not supported by the evidence or that recommended discipline is unwarranted. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6083, subd. (c); Wells v.

In Re Corralitos Co-Operative Drying & Canning Co.

130 Cal. 570 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1900

Brown, is set out in full in the schedule and inventory attached to his petition on file in this court in said matter, and a full description of the real property of the insolvent asked to be sold is set out in the petition … (Rued v. Cooper, 109 Cal. 682 .) With the petition and this schedule and inventory before it, the court had everything belonging to the estate before it.

Pike v. Brittan

71 Cal. 159 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1886

(Eakin v. Brown, 1 E. D. Smith, 44.)

Brewer v. Railroad Commission

190 Cal. 85 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1922

This proceeding is, in substance, identical with the proceeding entitled Brewer v. Railroad Commission, ante, p. 60 [ 210 Pac. 511 ]. … The court further held that the fact that the board of supervisors of the county of San Diego, acting under the statute of 1885 empowering such boards to fix and regulate the water rates of corporations had adopted an ordinance

Nicolson Pavement Co. v. Fay

35 Cal. 695 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

against Painter, decided at the present term, (post,) lies in the fact that in addition to the cause of action for putting down Nieolson pavement, the complaint contains also a cause of action for other work for which the Board … There is nothing in the ease of Beaudry v. Valdez, 32 Cal. 269 , which is counter to this view.

Byrne v. Luning Co.

4 Cal. Unrep. 895 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1894

The work to be done was described in the resolution of intention passed by the board of supervisors, and in the complaint, as follows: “That a sixteenth-inch stone-pipe sewer, with manhole and cover, be constructed in Jones … The case of Libbey v. Elsworth, 97 Cal. 316 , 32 Pac. 228 , cited by appellant, is not in point.

Cross v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

60 Cal. 2d 690 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1964

Leeper v. … Brown, 39 Cal.2d 622, 631 [12] [ 248 P.2d 922 ].) The running of the statute of limitations against adult heirs, therefore, does not affect the rights of minor plaintiffs in a wrongful death action.

El Toro Development Co. v. County of Orange

45 Cal. 2d 586 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1955

El Toro’s application to the county board of equalization (Rev. & Tax. … The judgment is reversed with directions to the trial court to remand the proceedings to the county board of equalization for action in accord with the opinions expressed above and in De Luz Homes v.

Connard v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

14 Cal. 2d 375 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1939

“No person shall board or alight from any street car or Vehicle while such street car or vehicle is in motion.” Section 80.47. … “No person shall ride upon the fender, steps, or running board of any street car or vehicle.”

Drouet v. Superior Court

3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 205 · California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2003

Textile Workers v. … (See Folsom v.

Security-First National Bank v. Pierson

2 Cal. 2d 63 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1934

(McCue v. Tunstead, 65 Cal. 506, 507 [ 4 Pac. 510 ]; Estate of Slade, 122 Cal. 434, 437 [ 55 Pac. 158 ] ; Simons v. Lovell, 7 Heisk. (54 Tenn. *65 419) 510, 516; Dillard v. Webb, 55 Ala. 468, 474 ; 25 Cor. … (Pacific Bank v. Robinson, 57 Cal. 520, 522 [ 40 Am. Rep. 120 ] ; Stanton v. French, 91 Cal. 274 [ 27 Pac. 657 , 25 Am. St. Rep. 174 ] ; Estate of Brown, 123 Cal. 399, 401 [ 55 Pac. 1055 , 69 Am. St.

People v. Superior Court

3 Cal. 3d 807 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1970

(People v. Brown (1955) 45 Cal.2d 640, 643 [ 290 P.2d 528 ], and cases cited.) “What is the test of reason which makes a search reasonable? … Wigginton (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 321 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 104 ]; People v. Brown (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 448 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 438 ]; Bergeron v. Superior Court (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 433 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 711 ]; People v.

Stockton Automobile Co. v. Confer

154 Cal. 402 · California Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1908

The defendant Confer was a member of the board of public works which awarded the contract, knew of the contract, and was at the same time superintendent of streets. … Thus in Williams v.

Sabichi v. Aguilar

43 Cal. 285 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1872

(Johnson v. Van Dyke, 20 Cal. 225 ; Davis v. Davis, 26 Cal. 46 ; Beach v. Gabriel, 29 Cal. 580 .) … In Mahoney v.

People v. Clark

47 Cal. 456 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

By the Court: The judgment' must be reversed, upon the authority of Richardson v. Heydenfeldt, 46 Cal. 68 . The case here is not distinguishable from that case. … The notice of intention upon the part of the Board is not set forth in the complaint, but the plaintiff cannot claim a judgment in his favor except upon the presumption that such a notice, containing a proper designation

Marsh v. State Bar

2 Cal. 2d 75 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1934

(Marsh v. State Bar, supra, p. 306 .) … (Barbee v. State Bar, 213 Cal. 296 [ 2 Pac. (2d) 353 ] ; Dahl v. State Bar, 213 Cal. 160 [ 1 Pac. (2d) 977 ]; Mills v.

Laguna Drainage District v. Martin Co.

144 Cal. 209 · California Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1904

Now in discussing the validity of the act of 1868 it was said in Hagar v. … Counsel for respondent contends that the act of 1885 is no more valid from a constitutional point of view than the Drainage Act of 1881 (Stats. 1881, p. 15), declared unconstitutional in Rickey v.

Western Lithograph Co. v. Vanomar Producers

185 Cal. 366 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1921

It is necessary only to refer to Crowley v. Genesee Min. Co., 55 Cal. 273 , and Aigeltinger v. … (Michaud v. MacGregor, 61 Minn. 198 , [ 63 N. W. 479 ]; King v. Duluth etc. Co., 61 Minn. 482 , [ 63 N. W. 1105 ].)

Imperial Land Co. v. Imperial Irr. Dist.

173 Cal. 674 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1916

The injunction restrained the enforcement of an assessment levied by the board of directors of the Imperial Irrigation District. … (Foster v. Smith, 115 Cal. 611 , [ 47 Pac. 591 ]; Bradley v. Voorsanger, 143 Cal. 214 , [ 76 Pac. 1031 ].) The appeal is dismissed. Shaw, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

City of Long Beach v. Marshall

11 Cal. 2d 609 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1938

(See Atwood v. Hammond, 4 Cal. (2d) 31, 37 [ 48 Pac. (2d) 20 ]; Los Angeles v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 45 *615 Cal. App. 15, 17 [ 187 Pac. 739 ]; Lloyd v. Redondo Beach, 124 Cal. … To the same effect are Los Angeles v. Pacific Coast 8. 8. Co., 45 Cal. App. 15 [ 187 Pac. 739 ]; Lloyd v. Redondo Beach, supra; Newcomb v.