Case law

Davie's v. Torrance

188 Cal. 179 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1922

March 30, 1917, by each plaintiff to the bank. [1] If the plaintiffs were sureties for the corporation, then the indebtedness of the corporation to them accrued at the time they paid the note, to wit, March 30, 1917 {Yule v. … Bishop, 133 Cal. 574 [ 62 Pac. 68 , 65 Pac. 1094 ]; Coulter Dry Goods Co. v. Wentworth, 171 Cal. 500 [ 153 Pac. 939 ]).

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

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.

People v. Doherty

67 Cal. 2d 9 · California Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1967

Valdez (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 459, 465-466 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 840 ] ; People v. Almond (1965) 239 Cal.App.2d 46, 49-50 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 308 ] ; People v. Brown, supra, 238 Cal.App.2d 924 , 929 ; People v. … (Compare the facts in People v. Brown (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 924, 928 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 204 ].) Such a tactical maneuver should not generate a valid basis for reversal.

Aldrich v. Barton

153 Cal. 488 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1908

The decision in Kellogg v. … (Carpentier v. Oakland, 30 Cal. 439 ; Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 402 , [ 94 Am. Dec. 742 ] ; Drake v. Duvenick, 45 Cal. 464 ; Lyon v. Petty, 65 Cal. 325 , [ 4 Pac. 103 ] ; Bennett v. Wilson, 133 Cal. 379 , [ 85 Am. St.

Witt v. Jackson

57 Cal. 2d 57 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1961

(Maio v. Fahs, 339 Pa. 180 [ 14 A.2d 105, 110 ] ; Brown v. Dickey, 397 Pa. 454 [ 155 A.2d 836, 840 ].) … (Brown v. Southern Ry. Co., 204 N. C. 668 [ 169 S.E. 419 ] ; Essick v. City of Lexington, 233 N. C. 600 [ 65 S.E.2d 220, 225 ] ; Lovette v. Lloyd, 236 N.C. 663 [ 73 S.E.2d 886, 892 ].)

McCormick v. Sutton

78 Cal. 232 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1889

Without stopping to discuss the question whether the patent of the United States to Hughes, president of the board of trustees of the city of Sonora, the deed of said board to Dan McCormick, and the decree of the probate … never conveyed to Richards and Pereira any part of the lands in controversy,—any part of the surface thereof, but simply the right to mine beneath the surface; that she had no notice of the pendency of the suit of Sutton v.

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.

People v. Conklin

12 Cal. 3d 259 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1974

(Hines v. Davidowitz, supra, 312 U.S. 52, 67 , fn. omitted [ 85 L.Ed. 581, 587 ]; see *270 also Head v. New Mexico Board, supra, 374 U.S. at p. 432 [10 L.Ed.2d at pp. 989-990]; Florida Avocado Growers v. … (See Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, supra, 373 U.S. at pp. 142-146 [10 L.Ed.2d at pp. 256-259]; Head v. New Mexico Board, supra, 374 U.S. at p. 432 [ 10 L.Ed.2d at p. 989 ]; cf. Goldstein 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.

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.

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 .) . . .

E. W. McLellan Co. v. E. San Mateo Land Co.

166 Cal. 736 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1913

(Breeze v. Brooks, 97 Cal. 72 , [22 L. R. A. 257, 31 Pac. 742 ].) A finding capable of two reasonable constructions must be interpreted according to that one which sustains the judgment. (Brison v. … (Coffee v. Williams, 103 Cal. 550 , [ 37 Pac. 504 ] ; Kearney v. Bell, 160 Cal. 661 , [ 117 Pac. 925 ].)

Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Haynes

173 Cal. 44 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1916

In Pinney v. … In Thomas v.

Kendall v. Foulks

180 Cal. 171 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1919

(De Godey v. Godey, 39 Cal. 157,166 ; McCreery v. Brown, 42 Cal. 457 .) … (Coolot v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 52 Cal. 65 ; Hiller v.

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.

Estate of Richartz

45 Cal. 2d 292 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1955

Board of Retirement, 35 Cal.2d 212, 214, 218-219 [ 217 P.2d 660 ]; also Kern v. City of Long Beach, 29 Cal.2d 848, 855 [ 179 P.2d 799 ]; Wallace v. … Respondent cites the case of Shaw v. Board of Administration, 109 Cal.

Denninger v. Recorder's Court of Pomona

145 Cal. 629 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1904

doctrine of this court is, that all constitutional provisions are self-executing when they can be given reasonable effect without the aid of legislation, unless it clearly appears that such was not the intention (Winchester v. … Subdivision 16 of section 764 of the Municipal Corporation Act empowers the board of trustees in cities of the fifth class to impose fines, penalties, and forfeitures, for any and all violations of ordinances, etc.

Connolly v. Industrial Acc. Commission

173 Cal. 405 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1916

Connolly that he was working on “a contract job,” that he was his “own boss,” and that he would have to pay board for himself and his helper. … (Western Grain and Sugar Products Co. v. Pillsbury, ante, p. 135, [ 159 Pac. 423 ]; Rideout v. Pillsbury, ante, p. 132, [ 159 Pac. 435 ].)

Moore v. Lent

81 Cal. 502 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1889

All of the acts prohibited by the statute are voluntary acts of the members of the board of directors. … In Irvine v. McKeon, 23 Cal. 474 , it was said: “ This statute provides for making one person individually liable for the debts of another, and prescribes how and under what circumstances he shall beheld thusliable.