Case law

Ketchum v. Crippen

37 Cal. 223 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

The following cases establish the principle, both that the *228 relief may be bad, on motion, in the foreclosure suit, and, this being so, that it must be sought there: Brown v. Frost, 10 Paige, 243 ; Boggs v. … Hargrave, 16 Cal. 559 ; Borland v. Thornton, 12 Cal. 440 ; Comstock v. Clemens, 19 Cal. 80 ; Logan v. Hillegass, 16 Cal. 202 ; Imlay v. Carpentier, 14 Cal. 173 ; Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal. 143 ; Sanchez v.

Tuohy v. Woods

122 Cal. 665 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1898

This principle is aptly stated in Stowell v. Goodenow, 31 Me. 540 . … (See, also, Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. 701 ; Calvo v. Davies, 73 N. Y. 211 ; 29 Am. Rep. 130 ; Riggins v. Brown, 13 Ga. 276 ; Taylor v. Johnson, 17 Ga. 521 ; Edwards v. Coleman, 6 T. B.

In Re Blois

179 Cal. 291 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1918

(South Pasadena v. South Pasadena Canal Co., 152 Cal. 579 , [ 93 Pac. 490 ].) … (Willson v. Boise City, 6 Idaho, 391 , [ 55 Pac. 887 ].)

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

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.

People v. Austin

30 Cal. 3d 155 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1981

Thus, in People v. … (People v. Saffell, supra, 25 Cal. 3d, at p. 233; People v.

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.

Ashe v. State Bar

71 Cal. 2d 123 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1969

(Steiner v. State Bar, 68 Cal.2d 707, 708-709 [1-3] [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 729 , 441 P.2d 289 ]: Most v. State Bar, 67 Cal.2d 589, 596 [2a-3] [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 432 P.2d 953 ]; Zitny v. … State Bar, 50 Cal.2d 202 [ 323 P.2d 1003 ]; Mitton v. State Bar, 49 Cal.2d 686 [321 P.2d 13]; Tonini 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.

Lyon & Hoag v. Railroad Commission

183 Cal. 145 · California Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1920

It also claims, if it is a public utility, that.the control over it is vested in the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco and not in the Railroad Commission. … Caster v. Kansas Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 96 Kan. 298 , [ 150 Pac. 544 ]; State ex rel. Public Service Com. v. Missouri Southern R. R. Co. (Mo.), 214 S. W. 381 ; People ex rel. Hubbard v.

Hocharian v. Superior Court

28 Cal. 3d 714 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1981

Rules of Court, rule 203.5; Sanborn v. Chronicle Pub. Co. (1976) 18 Cal.3d 406, 418-419 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 402 , 556 P.2d 764 ]; Denham v. … Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ]; Corlett v. Gordon (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 1005 , 1013 et seq. [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 524 ]; Brown v. Pacific Tel. & Tel.

Green v. Redding

92 Cal. 548 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1891

In Van Every v. Ogg, 59 Cal. 565 , it was said: “ The tenant takes the premises for better or for worse, and cannot involve the landlord in expense for repairs without his consent ”; quoting Mumford v. … Brown, 6 Cow. 475 .

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.

Bay Rock Company v. Bell

133 Cal. 150 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1901

(Schwiesau v. Mahon, 128 Cal. 114 .) … It was held in Fay v.

Lin Sing v. Washburn

20 Cal. 534 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1862

This is the leading idea of the Passenger Cases, and the necessary inference from these cases, taken in connection with Brown v. … The decision has never been supposed to be in conflict xvith Brown v. The State of Maryland ; and since it was rendered, the latter case has been affirmed in Almy v. The State of California. ( 24 How. 169 .)

Jackson v. Baehr

138 Cal. 266 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1903

In Hilton v. … And this court said in Mason v.

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.

People v. Ramirez

50 Cal. 3d 1158 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1990

(See, e.g., People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 446-448 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].) … (See, e.g., People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d 730, 777-779 ; People v. Bonin (1989) 47 Cal.3d 808, 857 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 298 , 765 P.2d 460 ].) M. Brown Claim This case was tried before our decision in People v.

Doble Steam Motors Corp. v. Daugherty

195 Cal. 158 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1924

In the case of Suckow v. … Co. v.

Cole v. Swanston

1 Cal. 51 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1850

The plaintiff sold to the defen *54 dants 50,325 feet of lumber, being on board of his ship in the harbor of San Francisco, at the rate of $150 per thousand. The sale note specifies no time or place of delivery. … Ed. ; Banker v. Hoyt, 18 Pick. 457 .) These damages were incurred by the defendants in sending lighters for the lumber, which they could not obtain, and amount to $110.