Case law

Chemical National Bank of New York v. Havermale

120 Cal. 601 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1898

Bank v. Case, 99 U. S. 628 .) … Co. v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 139 U.

Gund v. County of Trinity

California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2020

(See, e.g., Crumpler, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d at p. 578; Neeley v. Board of Retirement (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 815, 822 (Neeley).) … To support this proposition, the Gunds rely on the plurality opinion in People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464 (lead opn. of Brown, J.) (Ray). This reliance is misplaced.

Gardner v. Tatum

81 Cal. 370 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1889

The plaintiff’s application was not granted by the board of examiners until March 12th, and his certificate was not received by him until March 21st; it was recorded March 29th. … (Swanger v. Mayberry, 59 Cal. 91 ; Ladda v. Hawley, 57 Cal. 51 .)

People ex rel. Farnum v. San Francisco Savings Union

72 Cal. 199 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1887

(Connolly v. Davidson, 15 Minn. 519 .) The receipts of a business, deducting current expenses; it is equivalent to net receipts. (Eyster v. Centennial Board of Finance, 94 U. S. 500 .) … In People v.

Busch v. Turner

26 Cal. 2d 817 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1945

(Alabam’s Freight Co. v. Hunt, 29 Ariz. 419 [ 242 P. 658 ]; State v. Hecker, 109 Ore. 520 [ 221 P. 808 ]; State v. … A county board of supervisors adopted a resolution relating thereto after passage of the state act but prior to its effective date.

People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co.

38 Cal. 3d 509 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1985

The board’s interpretation of the Highway Beautification Act is debatable (see United States v. Portneuf-Marsh Valley Irr. Co. (E.D. … (Hancock v. Train (1976) 426 U.S. 167, 179 [ 48 L.Ed.2d 555, 565 , 96 S.Ct. 2006 ], fns. omitted; see also EPA v. State Water Resources Control Board (1976) 426 U.S. 200 [ 48 L.Ed. 578 , 96 S.Ct. 2022 ].)

City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern

59 Cal. 4th 618 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2014

(Brown v. Mortensen (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1052, 1064; Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077, 1088.) In Brown, we were called upon to interpret an ambiguous federal express preemption clause. … It follows that, ―absent persuasive evidence Congress intended more expansive preemption‖ (Brown v. Mortensen, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1064), we must prefer the grace period interpretation.

Knight v. City of Los Angeles

26 Cal. 2d 764 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1945

Board of Education, 42 Cal.App.2d 415 [ 109 P.2d 29 ]; Sand *767 stoe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 Cal.App.2d 215 [ 82 P.2d 216 ] ; Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal.App. 23 [ 28 P.2d 377 ]; Milovich v. … Defendant relies upon Kelso v. Board of Education, 42 Cal.App.2d 415 [ 109 P.2d 29 ], and Shipman v.

Rae v. California Equipment Co.

12 Cal. 2d 563 · California Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1939

The case of Gulzoni v. … (See, also, the early and leading ease of Pastene v. Adams, 49 Cal. 87 , and Springer v. Pacific Fruit Exch., 92 Cal. App. 732, 737-739 [ 268 Pac. 951 ].) Nor do we think the case of Stultz v.

San Diego Water Co. v. City of San Diego

118 Cal. 556 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1897

It is clear that under the rule laid down by the supreme court of the United States in Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan *567 etc. Co., 154 U. … of delegates and three members from the board of aldermen of said common council.

McBurney v. Indus. Accident Comm'n

220 Cal. 124 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1934

Section 5 of the same act makes it the duty of the board of supervisors, or of any person or society so authorized by the board, to investigate every application for relief from the funds of' the county; to supervise by periodic … W. 826 ]; see, also, Thurston Chapter., etc., v. Department of Labor, 166 Wash. 488 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 577 ]; Stiles v. Des Moines Council, Boy Scouts of America, 209 Iowa, 1235 [ 229 N. W. 841 ]; Dillon v.

People v. Duren

9 Cal. 3d 218 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1973

In People v. … He saw defendant, dressed in a green shirt and a brown jacket, leaving the front door of the bar.

Weil v. Weil

37 Cal. 2d 770 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1951

(Brown v. Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Taylor v. Taylor, 66 Cal.App.2d 390, 396-397 [ 152 P.2d 480 ]; Combs v. Combs, supra, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904-905 .) … v.

Davis v. City of Sacramento

82 Cal. 562 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1890

The object of this action is the same as Bates v. … We held in Bates v. Gerber that the coupons did not draw interest after maturity, and the decision in that case is decisive of this. It was held in Davis v.

People v. Mendoza

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 428 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1998

As Justice Brown observes in her dissent, “By its terms, Penal Code section 22, subdivision (b) . . . does not apply to aider and abettor liability. … (See, e.g., People v.

Hopping v. Council of City of Richmond

170 Cal. 605 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1915

(Creighton v. Manson, 27 Cal. 613, 629 ; Quinehard v. Board of Trustees, 113 Cal. 664 , [ 45 Pac. 856 ].) … (Farrell v. Board of Trustees, 85 Cal. 416 , [ 24 Pac. 868 ].) Determining the disposition of public funds. (Myers v. English, 9 Cal. 349 ; People v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 175 ; Humbert v.

Call v. State Bar

45 Cal. 2d 104 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1955

The Board of Governors adopted the findings of the local committee and recommended a suspension of one year. … (Herron v.

Dulin v. Pacific Wood & Coal Co.

98 Cal. 304 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1893

(Williams v. Bruffy, 102 U. S. 249 .) … In Walls v.

Streicher v. Heimburge

205 Cal. 675 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1928

Neither of said boards of appraisers was able to agree upon a rental or even upon the appointment of a third member of any board of appraisers. … We regard such cases as Stout v. North, 211 Mo. App. 245, 252 [ 242 S. W. 119 ], and Burge v.

American Trust Co. v. Coryell

3 Cal. 2d 151 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1935

(Brown v. Aguilar, 202 Cal. 143 [ 259 Pac. 735 ] ; Rialto Construction Co. v. Reed, 17 Cal. App. 29 [ 118 Pac. 473 ]; City Street Improvement Co. v. Marysville, 155 Cal. 419 [ 101 Pac. 308 , 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 317].)