Case law

Hall v. Thurston

176 Cal. 738 · California Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1917

(Bank of Lassen Co. v. Sherer, 108 Cal. 513 , [ 41 Pac. 415 ].) The delivery constituting an assignment thereof was made by the International Security Company after the notes had matured. … (Bank of Stockton v. Jones, 65 Cal. 437 , [ 4 Pac. 418 ].) It is not alleged, however, that payment was made before notice of the transfer.

Purser v. Eagle Lake Land & Irrigation Co.

111 Cal. 139 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1896

was unanimously adopted at a special meeting of the board called for the purpose, refers to and identifies the note and mortgage in suit, and certain other notes, and resolves that the execution of said instruments was “ … (Hawley v. Gray etc. Paving Co., 106 Cal. 337 ; Miners’ Bitch Co. v. Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 597 ; Underhill v. Santa Barbara etc. Co., 93 Cal. 300 .) 2.

People v. Payton

3 Cal. 4th 1050 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1992

(See People v. Cooper, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 846; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 460 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].) … (People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 544, fn. 17 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ].)

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.

Kennedy v. Chase

119 Cal. 637 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1898

(Wright v. Rawson, 52 Iowa, 329 ; 35 Am. Rep. 275 ; Pfeiffer v. Ringler, 12 Daly, 437 .) The same doctrine is recognized in Kauffman v. Maier, 94 Cal. 269, 278 . … Dec. 660 ; Murray v. McLean, 57 Ill. 378 ; Schmidt v. Bauer, 80 Cal. 565 .)

Cleveland v. Choate

77 Cal. 73 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1888

These surveys were before the board of trustees when the deeds were made. … (O’Farr el v. Harney, 51 Cal. 125 .)

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.

Broadway Improvement & Investment Co. v. Tumansky

2 Cal. 2d 465 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1935

Corp. v. Mortgage Guar. Co., 129 Cal. App. 468 [ 18 Pac. (2d) 993 ], and Dauch v. … In the case of Dauch v.

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.

Mound Water Co. v. Southern California Edison Co.

184 Cal. 602 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1921

When this is done, we are of the opinion that a board of supervisors can have no more power over the rates to be paid by the stockholders than in the case of individuals.” This opinion was reaffirmed in McDermott v. … Co. v.

Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc.

62 Cal. 4th 298 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2015

(Brown, at pp. *25–*26.) … (E.g., Wyeth v. Levine, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 565; Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 544 U.S. 431, 449; Brown v. Mortensen, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 1060, 1064.)

Beverly Oil Co. v. City of Los Angeles

40 Cal. 2d 552 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1953

(Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925), 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ] ; Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926), 272 U.S. 365 [ 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.Ed. 303 ].) … Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 514 [ 234 P. 388 ]; affirmed, 274 U.S. 325, 328 [ 47 S.Ct. 594 , 71 L.Ed. 1074 ]; Miller v.

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.

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.

Ex parte Perkins

18 Cal. 60 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

(Loring v. Illsley, 1 Cal. 439 ; People v. Thurston, 5 Id. 517 ; DeBarry v. Lambert, 10 Id. 503 ; Baker v. Baker, Id. 527 .) II. This order was irregular. … (Brown v. Ackroyd, 34 Eng. L. & E. 214-217.)

Brooks v. Minturn

1 Cal. 481 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1851

Justice Bayley, in Tinkler v. Walpole, (14 East, 226,) one of the cases cited by Mr. … In the absence of any custom to the contrary, Sundays are computed in the calculation of lay days at the port of discharge; (Brown v.

Adams v. City of Modesto

6 Cal. Unrep. 486 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1900

of any such demand the president of the board shall draw a warrant,” etc. … The point arises on general demurrer: Thompson v. City of Milwaukee, 69 Wis. 492 , 34 N. W. 402 ; Flieth v. City of Wausau, 93 Wis. 446 , 67 N. W. 731 .

Marin Water & Power Co. v. Town of Sausalito

168 Cal. 587 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1914

Subsequently, pursuant to resolution regularly passed by the board of trustees of the town of Sausalito, the president of that board was empowered to execute a certain contract, set forth in full in the resolution and approved … In Munn v. Illinois, Mr.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Kirkwood

50 Cal. 2d 345 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1958

(County of Los Angeles v. Jones (1939), 13 Cal. 2d 554, 561 [2] [ 90 P.2d 802 ], and authorities there cited; Whitmore v. Brown (1929), 207 Cal. 473, 483 [ 279 P. 447 ].)

People v. Gardner

71 Cal. 2d 843 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1969

However, in People v. … People v. Hernandez, 264 Cal.App.2d 206, 208-212 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 330 ], indicated it agreed with Brown .