Case law

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

Tuttle v. Block

104 Cal. 443 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1894

Lumber Co. v. Olmstead, 85 Cal. 80 ; Korn v. Browne, 64 Pa. St. 55. … Lumber Co. v.

Essick v. City of Los Angeles

34 Cal. 2d 614 · California Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1950

(Thille v. Board of Public Works of City of Los Angeles (1928), 82 Cal.App. 187, 189 [ 255 P. 294 ]; see, also, West Coast Advertising Co. v. San Francisco (1939), 14 Cal.2d 516, 522 [ 95 P.2d 138 ]; City of Oakland v. … Board of Supervisors (1947), 31 Cal.2d 66, 73-74 [ 187 P.2d 686 ]; Wheeler v. Gregg (1949), supra, 90 Cal.App.2d 348, 362-363 ; North Side etc. Assn. v. Hillside etc.

People v. Billa

31 Cal. 4th 1064 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 2003

J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurred. 6 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. … We note that Chief Justice George was outside California (attending a board meeting of the national Conference of Chief Justices, of which he is currently president) when he communicated his concurrence in this opinion by

Gray v. Reclamation District No. 1500

174 Cal. 622 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1917

The reclamation board created by the legislature was called into existence to do these things. … Board of Supervisors, 47 Cal. 222 ; Lamb v. Reclamation Dist., 73 Cal. 125 , [ 2 Am. St. Rep. 775 , 14 Pac. 625 ]; People ex rel. Chapman v. Sacramento D. Dist., 155 Cal. 373 , [ 103 Pac. 207 ]; Laguna etc. Dist. v.

Baker v. O'Riordan

2 Cal. Unrep. 179 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1883

It cannot, then, be said that plaintiff was not represented (Denton v. Noyes, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 296, 5 Am. Dec. 237 ; Brown v. Nichols, 42 N. Y. 26 ; Abbott v. Dutton, 44 Vt. 546 , 8 Am.

Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners

7 Cal. 3d 288 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1972

Wofford (N.D.Ga. 1970) 321 F.Supp. 1259 ; Keenan v. Board of Law Examiners of State of N.C. (E.D.N.C. 1970) 317 F.Supp. 1350 ; but s-ee Suffimg v. Bondurant (D.N.M. 1972) 339 F.Supp. 257 .) … (Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners (1957) supra, 353 U.S. 232, 239 [ 1 L.Ed.2d 796, 801-802 , 77 S.Ct. 752 ].)

People v. Smith

15 Cal. 2d 640 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1940

(See People v. Chin Hane, 108 Cal. 597, 604 [ 41 Pac. 697 ]; People v. Pahner, 10 Cal. App. (2d) 294, 301 [ 51 Pac. (2d) 1143 ] ; People v. Allen, 166 Cal. 723, 730 [ 137 Pac. 1148 ] ; People v. … But in the case of People v.

McDermott v. Apgar

1 Cal. Unrep. 149 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1864

Upon this point the rights of the parties are governed by the principles determined in Bours v. Webster, 6 Cal. 661 , Visher v. Webster, 13 Cal. 58 , and Bernal v. Hovious, 17 Cal. 545 , 79 Am. Dec. 147 . … The hands were boarded on the farm by Griffin. Sometimes plaintiff’s horse and sometimes Griffin’s was used on the press.

Hayes v. Superior Court

6 Cal. 3d 216 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1971

Municipal Court (1966) 64 Cal.2d 806, 810 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 921 , 415 P.2d 809 ]; People v. Brown (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 745, 749 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 288 ]; Assem. Com. … (Compare People v. Brown (1968) supra, 260 Cal.App.2d 745, 751 , with People v.

People v. Stoner

65 Cal. 2d 595 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1967

In Warren v. … (Gilbert v. United States (9th Cir.) 366 F.2d 923, 951 , dissenting opinion of Browning, J.; United States ex rel. Stovall 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 .)

Big Jim Mines, Inc. v. Superior Court

9 Cal. 2d 503 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1937

(State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court, ante, p. 252 [ 70 Pac. (2d) 482 ]; Traffic Truck Sales Co. v. Justice’s Court, 192 Cal. 377 [ 220 Pac. 306 ].)

Parker v. Bower

172 Cal. 436 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1916

Ed. 322 ]; Boyd *439 v. Strahan, 36 Ill. 355 ; Wardner v. Seventh Day etc. Board, 232 Ill. 606 , [ 122 Am. St. Rep. 138 , 83 N. B. 1077]; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 105 Ill. 350 . … Board, the widow was given a life estate with power to “use, dispose of and control according to her own judgment during her natural life.” In Bradley v.

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.

Verdelli v. Gray's Harbor Commercial Co.

115 Cal. 517 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1897

And in Mullin v. … (And see also Ryan v. Los Angeles etc. Co., 112 Cal. 244 , and Foley v. California Horseshoe Co., ante, p. 184.)

Rowland v. Kreyenhagen

24 Cal. 52 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

In Grogan v. … The rule in this case was afterwards affirmed in Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 231 . So in Leese v.

McAllister v. Drapeau

14 Cal. 2d 102 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1939

R. 244]; Pye v. Grunert, 201 Minn. 191 [ 275 N. W. 615 , 276 N. W. 221 ]; Meek v. Wilson, 283 Mich. 679 [278 N. W. 731]; United States v. Kreidler, 11 Fed. Supp. 402; see, also, United States v. … (Smith v. Bach, 183 Cal. 259 [ 191 Pac. 14 ] ; Woodham v. Allen, 130 Cal. 194 [ 62 Pac. 398 ] ; Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U. S. 415 [ 26 L. Ed. 187 ].)

San José & Almaden Railroad v. Mayne

83 Cal. 566 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1890

R’y Co. v. Porter, 74 Cal. 262 : — “1. … R’y Co. v. Eddy, 42 Ark. 527 ; Brown v. Providence etc. R. R. Co., 5 Gray, 35 .)

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.