Case law

Warring v. Couch

165 Cal. 383 · California Supreme Court · May 7, 1913

(Brown v. Scott, 25 Cal. 196 ; Mulcahy v. Buckley, 100 Cal. 487 , [ 35 Pac. 144 ]; Loveland v. Garner, 74 Cal. 300 , [ 15 Pac. 844 ].) The complaint was filed on March 16, 1911.

Hart v. Burnett

20 Cal. 169 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1862

Justice Johnson to mean in the case of Buel v. Van Ness ( 8 Wheat. 312 ).” … (See Houston v. Moore, 3 Wheat. 433 ; Winn v. Jackson, 12 Id. 135; Brown v. The Union Bank of Florida, 4 How. 465 ; and Pepper et al. v. Dunlap et al., 5 Id. 51.) Application for citation denied.

People v. Fleming

94 Cal. 308 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1892

(People v. Mayes, 66 Cal. 597 ; 56 Am. Rep. 126 .) … This principle was also approved in the late case of People v. Manchego, 80 Cal. 306 . Upon an examination of the record in the case of People v.

City of Madera v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.

159 Cal. 749 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1911

(City of Denver v. Mullen, 7 Colo. 845 , [ 3 Pac. 693 ].) … (State v. District Court, 42 Minn. 247 , [ 44 N. W. 7 . 7 L. R. A. 121]; State v. St. Paul etc. Co., 98 Minn. 380 , [ 120 Am. St. Rep. 521 , 108 N. W. 261 , 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 298], and cases cited.)

Fickert v. Zemansky

157 Cal. 398 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1910

This was an application for- a writ of mandate to compel the board of election commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, when it prepared the ballots, to be used by voters at the general city and county election … The question we have here discussed was not involved in Socialist Party v.

People v. Beard

46 Cal. 2d 278 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1956

In People v. … In People v.

Joost v. Bennett

123 Cal. 424 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1899

of supervisors, and certain members composing said board, of the city and county of San Francisco, to declare and order vacated the franchise for railroad purposes granted to the said corporation. … (See, on this subject, Gurnee v. Maloney, 38 Cal. 85 ; 99 Am. Dec. 352 ; Firebaugh v. Burbank, 121 Cal. 186 ; Estate of Kasson, 119 Cal. 489 ; Estate of Kruger, ante, p. 391.)

Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. California Development Co.

171 Cal. 173 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1915

St. 189; Brown v. Chesapeake O. Canal Co., 73 Md. 567 ; Muller v. Dows, 94 U.S. 444 , [ 24 L.Ed. 207 ]; International Bridge and Tramway Co. v. Holland Trust Co., 81 Fed. 422 , [ 26 C. C. A. 469 ].) In Muller v. … This passage is quoted in Walker v. Brown, 165 U.S. 654 , [ 41 L.Ed. 865 , 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 453], as condensing and stating "the general result of the authorities on the subject." In Daggett v.

People v. Saffell

25 Cal. 3d 223 · California Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1979

(See, People v. Superior Court (Rigg) 80 Cal.App.3d 407, 414 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 711 ].) … J., concurred in the views of Presiding Justice Gerald Brown as expressed in the opinion issued by the Court of Appeal and reprinted above.

People v. Jordan

45 Cal. 2d 697 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1955

(People v. Newell, 192 Cal. 659, 669 [ 221 P. 622 ]; People v. … (People v. Smith, 215 Cal. 749 ; 751 [ 12 P.2d 945 ]; People v. Mag saysay, 210 Cal. 301, 302 [ 291 P. 582 ] ; People v.

Market Street Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission

24 Cal. 2d 378 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1944

The President advised the Board that he had agreed with the Mayor and other city officials, as well as the Board of Supervisors, to sell the operative properties of Market Street Railway Company to the City and County of … It said: (p. 304) “We do not sit as a board of revision, but to enforce constitutional rights. San Diego Land & Town Co. v.

Cowell v. Doub

12 Cal. 273 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1859

Some of the questions in this case have been decided in case of Moore v. Patch, at the last term. … It is no objection that the same Act provides for a correction of this list by the Board of Equalization. The case does not show that there was error to be corrected, so far as the appellants’ property is concerned.

San Francisco Savings Union v. Reclamation District No.124

144 Cal. 639 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1904

This is an action to recover money due the plaintiff on warrants drawn by order of the board of trustees of the defendant on the county treasurer,. approved by the board of supervisors, presented for payment, and not paid … Board, 40 Barb. 626 ; Baptist Church v. Utica etc. Ry. Co., 6 Barb. 313 ; United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168 ; Steele v. Smith, 1 Barn. & Ald. 99; Jones v. Axen, 1 Ld.

In re Averill's Estate

6 Cal. Unrep. 774 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1901

For these items the court allowed for the former for services $250 and for board $95, aggregating $345, and for the latter $125, and disallowed the balance. … nor is its discretion limited by the fact that there was uncontradicted testimony of witnesses as to their opinions that a larger amount should have been allowed: In re Lux’s Estate, 100 Cal. 593 , 35 Pac. 341 ; Freese v.

City of S.F. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2019

For example, in Board of Trustees v. … In City of Santa Ana v. Board of Ed. of City of Santa Ana (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 178 , 62 Cal.Rptr. 863 and Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v.

McBride v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

44 Cal. 2d 113 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1955

Plaintiff, who had undergone a knee operation and was using crutches, boarded the train at Fullerton to go to Needles, California. … V. R. Co. v.

Pasadena Sch. Dist. v. City of Pasadena

166 Cal. 7 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1913

for school houses and to enable him to do so all boards of trustees before adopting any plan for school buildings must submit the same to the county superintendent for his approval. … (Denman v. Webster, 139 Cal. 452 , [ 73 Pac. 139 ].)

Brennan v. Tremco Inc.

25 Cal. 4th 310 · California Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2001

(Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 831 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 982 P.2d 229 ]; see also id. at pp. 843-844 (cone. & dis. opn. of Brown, J.) … Kennard, J., Baxter, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Wittenbrock v. Cass

110 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1895

(Citing Brison v. Brison, 75 Cal. 525 ; 7 Am. St. Rep. 189 , and other cases.) We do not think this contention can be sustained. … The case of Bury v. Young, 98 Cal. 446 , 35 Am. St. Rep. 186 , is in many respects very similar to this.

Schroeder v. Imperial Insurance

132 Cal. 18 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1901

(Titus v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 410 ; Meadows v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 62 Iowa, 387 .) … Y. 418 ; Norris v. Hartford Ins. Co., 55 S. C. 450; 2 33 S. E. Rep. 566 ; Merchants Ins. Co. v. Brown, 77 Md. 79 ; 25 Atl. Rep. 992 .