Case law

Centerville & Kingsbury Irrigation Ditch Co. v. Sanger Lumber Co.

140 Cal. 385 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1903

(Robinson v. Pittsburg R. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 334; 1 Davis v. Hart, 123 Cal. 388 .) … (Woolever v.

McGillycuddy v. Los Verjels Land and Water Co.

213 Cal. 145 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1931

The contract was made on June 16, 1913, by resolution of the board of directors. This contract was apparently terminated on August 25, 1920. … They fully meet the test laid down in Clunin v. First Federal Trust Co., 189 Cal. 248 [ 207 Pac. 1009 ].

Johnson v. State Bar

4 Cal. 2d 744 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1935

(See, also, Allen v. State Bar, 218 Cal. 19 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 107 ], and Shaeffer v. State Bar, 220 Cal. 681 [ 32 Pac. (2d) 140 ].) … (See Herron v. State Bar, 212 Cal. 196 [ 298 Pac. 474 ].)

Quitzow v. Perrin

120 Cal. 255 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1898

Co. v. Neal, 94 Cal. 182 ; Dooly v. Norton, 41 Cal. 439 .) … (Fairbanks v. Lampkin, supra.)

Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Superior Court

49 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1989

The court in Fremont Indemnity v. … In Phillips v.

People v. Ward

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 464 · California Supreme Court · Sep 7, 2005

(People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 401; People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 276.) K. … (People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 404.) L.

People v. Rindge

174 Cal. 743 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1917

hereafter so declared by the board of supervisors. … (Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 642 ; Cerf v. Pfleging, 94 Cal. 131 , [ 29 Pac. 417 ]; Niles v. City of Los Angeles, 125 Cal. 572 , [ 58 Pac. 190 ].)

County of San Diego v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance

33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 583 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2005

The Ramona Landfill overlies potable groundwater, and in 1970 the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) imposed operational requirements on the County. *412 In March 1997, the Regional Water Board issued … The County waived a hearing before the board to challenge imposition of the remedial cleanup order.

Ex Parte Jackson

143 Cal. 564 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1904

In City of Tulare v. … The ease of Rauer v.

Hannan v. McNickle

82 Cal. 122 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1889

(Tyler v. Fickett, 75 Me. 211 ; Guthrie v. Holt, 9 Baxt. 527 ; Buell v. Irvin, 24 Mich. 145 .) … Musson, 9 Vt. 37 ; Browning v. Estes, 3 Tex. 476 ; 49 Am. Dec. 760 ; Bishop v. Truett, 85 Ala. 376 .) Judgment and order appealed from affirmed.

People v. Weaver

111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 2001

This was the “standard pre-Brown mandatory weighing instruction, which quoted the language of the statute.” (People v. Avena, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. *985 440; see People v. … Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 726 P.2d 516 ], revd. on another issue sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 107 S.Ct. 837 , 93 L.Ed.2d 934 ].)

Pixley v. Saunders

168 Cal. 152 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1914

The following language from the case of Wilson v. Board of Trustees of Sanitary District, [133 111. 443, 466], 27 N. … (Reeves v. Treasurer of Wood County, 8 Ohio St. 333 ; Thompson v. Treasurer of Wood County, 11 Ohio St. 678 ; Anderson v. Drainage Co., 14 Ind. 199 , [ 77 Am. Dec. 63 ]; O’Reiley v. Drain Co., 32 Ind. 169 ; Sessions v.

Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 142 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 2002

Davis, San *147 Francisco, for City of Oakland, Board of Port Commissioners as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, David M. Halbreich, Los Angeles, Thomas M. … (See generally Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 412 , 751 P.2d 470 ; Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1980) 26 Cal.3d 588 , 163 Cal. Rptr. 132 , 607 P.2d 924 .)

Steinhart v. National Bank of D. O. Mills & Co.

94 Cal. 362 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1892

(Griffith v. Grogan, 12 Cal. 317 ; Welch v. Allington, 23 Cal. 322 ; Brown v. Olmsted, 50 Cal. 162 ; National Bank v. McDonald, 51 Cal. 64 ; 21 Am. Rep. 697 ; Comptoir d’Escompte v. Dresbach, 78 Cal. 15 .)

Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach

52 Cal. 4th 155 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2011

(E.g., Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 439; Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1581; see 8 Witkin, Cal. … (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 439, discussing public interest standing.)

Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 179 · California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 2000

Co. (4th Cir. 1976) 540 F.2d 699 , 707-708; Weathers v. Peters Realty Corporation (6th Cir. 1974) 499 F.2d 1197, 1201 ; see Lamphere v. Brown University (1st Cir. 1977) 553 F.2d 714, 718-719, fn. 11 .) … (E.g., Stephens v. Montgomery Ward (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 411, 418 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 602 ]; see Reyes v. Board of Supervisors (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1263, 1271-1272 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 339 ] [citing Stephens v.

Requa v. Snow

76 Cal. 590 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1888

In Green v. … And this question, too, is decided in effect by Brown v. Coviliaud, 6 Cal. 568 , from which opinion the negative of the proposition results as a logical necessity.”'

Silva v. Spangler

5 Cal. Unrep. 277 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1896

In support of the last proposition we are referred to the ease of Grimes v. Linscott (not officially reported; decided May 24, 1895), ante, p. 38, 40 Pac. 421 . … There is no claim that this road was ever declared a highway by the board of supervisors. It only remains, then, to inquire, Did the owners thereof dedicate it to the public use?

Thompson v. Felton

54 Cal. 547 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

As to what Osborn told Harvey Brown, they do not agree, and where there is a substantial conflict in the testimony this Court never reverses an order of the Court below which grants or denies a new trial. … As given to the jury, it would appear that the Court, in Polack v. McGrath, held that something less was required to constitute adverse possession than the same Court had held to be requisite in Thompson v. Pioche .

Claxton v. Waters

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 246 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2004

In yet another decision, Delaney v. … In that case, Mitchell v.