Case law

Tobe v. City of Santa Ana

9 Cal. 4th 1069 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1995

State Dept, of Education (1992) 2 Cal.4th 251, 267 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 545 , 825 P.2d 438 ], quoting Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 180-181 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 487 , 624 P.2d 1215 ].) … State Dept, of Education, supra, 2 Cal.4th 251, 267 , quoting Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d 168, 180-181.) All presumptions favor the validity of a statute.

Crowe v. Sacks

44 Cal. 2d 590 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1955

Defects in form of the verdict may render it “informal” or “insufficient” (Brown v. Regan, 10 Cal.2d 519, 523 [ 75 P.2d 1063 ]; Kerrison v. Unger, 135 Cal.App. 607, 611 [ 27 P.2d 927 ].) … (See Brown v. Regan, 10 Cal.2d 519, 524 [ 75 P.2d 1063 ]; Van Damme v.

Darrough v. Herbert Kraft Co. Bank

125 Cal. 272 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1899

I am of opinion that the facts stated bring the case within the principles laid down by this court in Matzen v. Shaeffer, 65 Cal. 81 ; Shaffer v. McCloskey, 101 Cal. 576 ; and Hines v. … (Shaffer v. McCloskey, supra.) In Persons v. Shaeffer, 65 Cal. 79 , and Richards v. Griffith, 92 Cal. 493 , 27 Am. St.

In Re Marriage of Elfmont

9 Cal. 4th 1026 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1995

(In re Marriage of Brown, supra, 15 Cal.3d 838 .) … (In re Marriage of Brown, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 848 ; see also Biltoft v. Wootten, supra, 96 Cal.App.3d at p. 62 [apportioning term life insurance].)

Mooney v. Cyriacks

185 Cal. 70 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1921

Code, secs. 1566-1568, 1572, 1709, 1710; Johnson v. Powers, 65 Cal. 179 , [ 3 Pac. 625 ]; Hick v. Thomas, 90 Cal. 289 , [ 27 Pac. 208, 376 ]; Newman v. Smith, 77 Cal. 22 , [ 18 Pac. 791 ]; Maxson v. … W. 865 ]; Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Webb (Tex. Civ. App.), 181 S. W. 853 ; Avery Co. v. Staples (Tex. Civ. App.), 183 S.

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.

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].)

Ex parte Hayes

20 L.R.A. 701 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1893

The Court This is a proceeding upon habeas corpus, and the question involved is, whether it is competent for the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco to provide by ordinance that it shall be unlawful … underlie and support legislation of this character were announced by this court in Ex parte Christensen, 85 Cal. 208 , and also received an exhaustive discussion by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Crowley v.

Spiers v. Duane

54 Cal. 176 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

The papers in the actions of Voll v. Walsh, Welton v. NcNear, and Butler v. Voll, were properly excluded under objection on the part of plaintiff. … (Cave v. Crafts, 53 Cal. 135 .)

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.)

Ventura County Waterworks District No. 5 v. Public Utilies Commission

61 Cal. 2d 462 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1964

(Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Devlin, 188 Cal. 33, 40 [ 203 P. 1058 ]; Brewer v. Railroad Com., 190 Cal. 60, 77-78 [ 210 P. 511 ]; Southern Pac. Co. v. Railroad Com., 13 Cal.2d 125, 129-130 [ 87 P. 1052 ]; Market St. … It requires notice and a hearing, approval by the board, and in some cases approval at a special election. (Wat. Code, §§ 55800-55901.)

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.

People v. Wing

147 Cal. 382 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1905

This action, like that of People v. Wing (Sac. … Waiving the question as to the effect of this declaration of the board of trustees of said town, there are other allegations of the complaint tending to show that the maintenance of said building in its present condition

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.

Claudius v. Aguirre

89 Cal. 501 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1891

In Brown v. Johnson, 45 Cal. 76 , the judgment was for the value of the property without the alternative for its return. … In Burke v.