Case law

In re Zerbe

60 Cal. 2d 666 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1964

Republic Aviation Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 324 U.S. 793 , 797 et seq. [ 65 S.Ct. 982 , 89 L.Ed. 1372, 1376 , 157 A.L.R. 1081, 1083-1084 ].) … Co. v. Lumber & S. W.

Boca & Loyalton R.R. v. Superior Court of Lassen Cty.

150 Cal. 153 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1907

In the early ease of Board of Commissioners v. Younger, 29 Cal. 147 , [ 87 Am. … of Commissioners v.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Modesto Irrigation Co.

149 Cal. 662 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1906

(See Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N.Y. 278 , and cases there cited.) … (See, also, Tifft v. Horton, 53 N.Y. 380 , [ 13 Am.Rep. 537 ]; Memphis etc. v. State, 6 Cold. (Tenn.) 311, [98 Am.Dec. 452]; Chelsea Water Works v. Bowley, 17 Q.B. 359; and Wiggins v. Ohio, 142 U.S. 415 , [ 12 Sup.

Martin v. Thompson

62 Cal. 618 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1882

In Halleck, Executor, v. … To the same effect, Baker v. Howell, 6 Serg. & R. 476; Brown v. Caldwell, 10 id. 114; S. C., 13 Am. Dec. 660 .

Blanc v. Bowman

22 Cal. 23 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

(Grogan v. Ruckle, 1 Cal. 194 ; Mateer v. Brown, Id. 231 ; Leese v. Clark, 20 Id. 387.) … (Corning v. Slosson, 16 N. Y. 294 .)

Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc.

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 662 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2003

. & Hous. v. … (See American Federation of Labor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1017, 1025 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 109 , 920 P.2d 1314 ] [precedential decisions of Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board].)

Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo

37 Cal. 3d 465 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1984

(Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 263 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 516 ], quoting Larsen v. Beckman (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 185, 191 .) … A “Residential Development Evaluation Board” would consider the applications for allotments.

People v. Durazo

52 Cal. 2d 354 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1959

Brown and Stanley Mosk, Attorneys General, and William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent. SPENCE, J. … (See also Brown v. United States, 222 F.2d 293 , where it is reported that an informer came to a "violent death" between trials, and Draper v.

Clark v. Lockwood

21 Cal. 220 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1862

This grant was presented to the *221 Board of Land Commissioners for confirmation by Hemy R. … (Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 272 ; Touchard v. Crow, 20 Id. 160.) The plaintiff did not, however, rest with the proof we have mentioned.

Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group

California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 2023

These functions are traditionally exercised by an employer, but the Board utilizes these powers in the instant case; and, therefore, the Board is an agent of the City for purposes of Title VII.” … On that basis, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment holding the Board liable for the plaintiff’s discriminatory termination. (Id. at p. 590.) Finally, in DeVito v.

Carr v. Quigley

2 Cal. Unrep. 823 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1887

Ed. 1169 ; Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 3 How. (U. S.) 413, 11 L. Ed. 658 . … The underlying idea of the decision on the former appeal, and of the case which it followed (Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761 , 23 L.

Estate of Madison

26 Cal. 2d 453 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1945

California Employment Com., 17 Cal.2d 321, 326 [ 109 P.2d 935 ]; Estate of Platt, 21 Cal.2d 343, 352 [ 131 P.2d 825 ] ; Mitchel v. Brown, 43 Cal.App.2d 217, 222 [ 110 P.2d 456 ]; see 23 Cal.Jur. 719; 10 Cal.Jur. 882.) … (Louisville v. Board of Education, 154 Ky. 316 [ 157 S.W. 379 ], and eases cited in 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3d ed.), p. 520, n. 9.)

London & Lancashire Fire Insurance Co. v. Liebes

105 Cal. 203 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1894

Brown, 82 Cal. 64 ; Holton v. Noble, 83 Cal. 7 .) … In Frisch v.

Colusa County v. Seube

6 Cal. Unrep. 32 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1898

A similar ordinance was the subject of construction in Merced Co. v. … Quoting from Lord Cairns in Partington v. Attorney General, L. B. 4 H.

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.

Moon v. Martin

185 Cal. 361 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1921

Also when he directs goods bought by him to be delivered for him on board cars in California, he makes the carrier his agent to transport the goods from California to his home place of business, and in such cases and .in … (Jameson v. Simonds Saw Co., 2 Cal. App. 582 , [ 84 Pac. 289 ]; Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co., 101 Pa. St. 148; Parson etc. Co. v. Stuart, 182 Fed. 779 , [ 105 C. C. A. 211 ]; Groneweg v. Estes, 139 Mo.

Hannah v. Green

143 Cal. 19 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1904

(Hisch v. Mayhew, 51 Cal. 514 ; Wilson v. His Creditors, 55 Cal. 476 ; Dean v. Grimes, 72 Cal. 442 .) There is no merit in the point that the citation was not properly served. … J., in Convery v. Conger, 53 N. J. L. 476, which was afterwards adopted by the court in the same ease at page 658 of said volume.)

Hagberg v. California Federal Bank FSB

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 803 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 2004

letter "was sent to prompt board action and was thus part of an official proceeding"]; Tiedemann v. … Montalbano (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 725, 732-733 , 151 Cal.Rptr. 206 [communications between parents and school board]; Tiedemann v.

Gudelj v. Gudelj

41 Cal. 2d 202 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1953

(Socol v. King, supra, 36 Cal.2d 342, 346 ; Watson v. Peyton, 10 Cal.2d 156, 158 [ 73 P.2d 906 ] ; Shaver v. Canfield, 21 Cal.App.2d 734, 741 [ 70 P.2d 507 ].) … (Browning v. Browning, 208 Cal. 518, 525 [ 282 P. 503 ].)

Jackson v. Baehr

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

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