Case law

County of Los Angeles v. Lamb

61 Cal. 196 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1882

The statutes passed on in the cases referred to (Peachy v. Board of Supervisors of Calaveras County, 59 Cal. 548 , and Speegle v. Joy, 60 id. 278), are entirely different.

Lloyd v. Murphy

25 Cal. 2d 48 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1944

The principles of frustration have been repeatedly applied to leases by the courts of this state (Brown v. Oshiro, 58 Cal.App.2d 190 [ 136 P.2d 29 ]; Davidson v. … business to be carried on in the leased premises but only limits or restricts it, thereby making it less profitable and more difficult to continue, the lease is not terminated or the lessee excused from further performance (Brown

Richardson v. City of Eureka

110 Cal. 441 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1895

(Schneider v. Brown, 85 Cal. 205 ; Sullivan v. Royer, supra; Sweetser v. Dobbins, 65 Cal. 529 ; compare Lamb v. Harbaugh, 105 Cal. 692 .) 4. … (Brandt v. Wheaton, 52 Cal. 430 ; McLaughlin v. Del Re, 64 Cal. 472 .) But absence of such findings in the record is not a fatal defect, unless it affirmatively appears that they were not waived. (Campbell v.

Wilson v. Blake

169 Cal. 449 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1915

(State v. Ely, 23 N. D. 619 , [ 137 N. W. 834 ] ; Belcher v. Treat, 61 Me. 577 .) … (Boyne v. Ryan, 100 Cal. 265 , [ 34 Pac. 707 ] ; French v. State Senate, 146 Cal. 604 , [2 Ann. Cas. 756, 69 L. R. A. 556, 80 Pac. 1031 ].) No such result can here be reached, for the reasons already given.

Smith v. Blodget

187 Cal. 235 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1921

(Ford v. Brown, 120 Cal. 551 , [ 52 Pac. 817 ] ; Wolverton v. Tuttle, 51 Or. 501 , [ 94 Pac. 961, 963 ].) … Brown, supra; Kennedy v. Merickel, 8 Cal.

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 ].)

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.

People v. Hagar

66 Cal. 59 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1884

Ho. 108, v. Hagar, No. 8,827, ante. Two points, however, not involved there are for consideration here. *60 1. … The board of supervisors, in hearing the petition for the formation of the district, and in making the order, had jurisdiction to determine what lands were to be benefited by the proposed system of reclamation, and to include

People v. Hedgecock

51 Cal. 3d 395 · California Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1990

Fidler (1979) 377 Mass. 192 [ 385 N.E.2d 513 ]; People v. Brown (1979) 48 N.Y.2d 388 [ 423 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 ]; Commonwealth v. Syre (1986) 513 Pa. 1 [ 518 A.2d 535 ]; State v. … Brown (1979) 48 N.Y.2d 388 [ 423 N.Y.S.2d 461 , 399 N.E.2d 51 ]; State v. Jenkins (1984) 15 Ohio St.3d 164 [ 473 N.E.2d 264, 325 ]; People v. Porter (1986) 111 Ill.2d 386 [ 489 N.E.2d 1329 ].)

County of Los Angeles v. City of Alhambra

27 Cal. 3d 184 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1980

Moore (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 221, 228 [40 CaLRptr. 121]; Board of Trustees v. Municipal Court (1979) 95 Cal. … Board of Trustees v. Municipal Court, supra, 95 Cal.App.3d 322, 327 , and City of San Diego v.

La Sance v. Casey

211 Cal. 383 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1931

(See People v. Fowler, 178 Cal. 657, 663 [ 174 Pac. 892 ].) The appellant pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the respondent, and requested the court to instruct the jury on that point. … The traveling public has the right to assume that a safety zone or station is what its name implies, namely, a place of safety reserved for those waiting to board or depart from street-cars at that point, “an area or space

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. McConnell

46 Cal. 2d 330 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1956

Brown, Attorney General, and Harold B. Haas, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. Robert Minge Brown, James B. Donovan, Sidney L. … Corp. v.

Shear Development Co. v. Cal. Coastal Com.

California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 2026

Shear appealed that decision to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors (Board). … The Board found that “[t]he capacities of available water supply and sewage disposal 8  SHEAR DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC v.

Luce v. Holloway

156 Cal. 162 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1909

The board of trustees of the city was charged by the law with the care and maintenance of the streets in a safe and proper condition for the use of the public. … R. v. Meador, 50 Tex. 77 ; Circleville v. Neuding, 41 Ohio St. 465 , 469; Baltimore v. O'Donnell, 53 Md. 110 , [ 36 Am. Rep. 395 ]; Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 657, 679 ; Water Company v. Ware, 16 Wall. 566 .) . . .

City & County of San Francisco v. Bradbury

92 Cal. 414 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1891

There is no appreciable distinction between the evidence thus presented to the court and that which was before the court in the case of Board of Education v. Donahue, 53 Cal. 190 . … In the case of Board of Education v.

Ex parte White

67 Cal. 102 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1885

We do not doubt the constitutional power of the board of supervisors to pass such an order, or of the municipal authorities to enforce its observance. (Const. art. xi. § 11; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. … S. 27 ; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703 .) Neither order 1719 nor 1767 is inconsistent with or repugnant to order 1559, nor is the object of either of the former the same as that of the latter.

Falls v. San Francisco & North Pacific Railroad

97 Cal. 114 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1893

Passengers owe it to themselves and to the company to act with reasonable care in alighting from and boarding trains. (McDonald v. L. I. R. R. Co., 116 N. Y. 548 ; 15 Am. St. Rep. 437 ; Penn. R. R. Co. v. Lyons, 129 Pa. … In Cornman v. E. C. R. R.

Clarkson v. Hanks

3 Cal. 47 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1853

At the same term of the court at which the above cause was determined, and a short time previous thereto, a decision was announced from the bench by the chief justice, in the case of Leese and Valejo v. … Upon the decision of the case of Leese and Valejo v.

City & County of San Francisco v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance

74 Cal. 113 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1887

(Trustees Exempt Firemen’s Fund v. Roome, 93 N. Y. 325 ; 45 Am. Rep. 217 .) … And even if the state may exercise a concurrent supervision over a subject, still, so far as actually controlled by the local board, it is a matter of municipal concern.

Haese v. Heitzeg

159 Cal. 569 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1911

Ed. 634 ]; Hol dermcm v. Hood, 70 Kan. 267 , [ 78 Pac. 838 ].) … (Galvin v. Palmer, 134 Cal. 426 , [ 66 Pac. 572 ]; Paige v. Boeding, 96 Cal. 389 , [ 31 Pac. 264 ]; Von Schmidt v. Von Schmidt, 104 Cal. 547 , [ 38 Pac. 361 ].)