Case law

Horn v. Volcano Water Co.

13 Cal. 62 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

(Brown & Sons v. Saul et al. 4 Martin, N. S. 434.) The petition of Shaffer and others, stands upon a different footing. … (Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229 ; Bennet v. Bedford Bank, 11 Mass. 421 ; Benton v. Jones, 8 Conn. 186 ; Carlisle v. Rich, 8 N. Hamp. 44; Miller v. Thompson, 3 Porter, 196 ; Bogard v.

McBean v. Redick

96 Cal. 191 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1892

The cases of Fanning v. Leviston, 93 Cal. 186 , Himmelmann v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 279 , and Boyle v. Hitchcock, 66 Cal. 129 , cited by appellant, are not in conflict with the case from which we have just quoted. … (Dougherty v. Hitchcock, 35 Cal. 512 .) 2.

Flournoy v. State of California

57 Cal. 2d 497 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1962

In Corning Hospital Dist. v. … (Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service Comrs., 21 Cal.2d 399, 402 [ 132 P.2d 804 ].)

Murphy v. Pacific Bank

119 Cal. 334 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1897

(Crane v. Pacific Bank, 106 Cal. 68 ; McGowan v. McDonald, 111 Cal. 57 ; 52 Am. St. Rep. 149 .) … (Los Angeles v. State Loan etc. Co., 109 Cal. 396 .)

E. Clemens Horst Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

184 Cal. 180 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1920

(Pacific Coast Casualty Co. v. Pillsbury, 171 Cal. 319 , [ 153 Pac. 24 ] ; Western Metal Supply Co. v. Pills bury, 172 Cal. 413 , [Ann. Cas. 1917E, 390, 156 Pac. 491 ] ; Carstens v. … In Western Indemnity Co. v.

Dixon v. Bartlett

176 Cal. 572 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1917

(McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 180 , [ 95 Am. Dec. 170 ].) This promise, therefore, if it be such, merely fixed September 23, 1909, as the beginning anew of the period of limitation applicable to the previous note. … (Porter v. Elam, 25 Cal. 292 , [ 85 Am. Dec. 132 ].) We find no error in the record. The judgment is affirmed. Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

In Re Cregler

56 Cal. 2d 308 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1961

As pointed out in People v. … (People v. Kelley (1937), 27 Cal. App.2d Supp. 771, 774 [3] [ 70 P.2d 276 ]; see also People v.

Holt v. Kelly

20 Cal. 3d 560 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1978

(Ellsworth v. Ellsworth (1954) 42 Cal.2d 719, 722-723 [ 269 P.2d 3 ]; Dynair Electronics, Inc. v. Video Cable, Inc. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 11, 20 [127 *563 Cal.Rptr. 268].) … (Daugherty v. Board of Trustees (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 519 [ 244 P.2d 950 ]; Reed v. Board of Education (1934) 139 Cal.App. 661 [ 34 P.2d 758 ].)

Reardon v. City of San Francisco

66 Cal. 492 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1885

The pleader then proceeds to aver a presentment of a claim and demand to the board of supervisors of the defendant, for the injuries aforesaid, and the rejection of this claim- and demand by the board. … We" are of opinion that the claim was properly presented to the board of supervisors.

People v. Shockley

California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 2014

(People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 737; People v. Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 117; People v. Pendleton (1979) 25 Cal.3d 371, 382; People v. Marshall (1957) 48 Cal.2d 394, 398; People v. … Brown, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P.

Forster Shipbuilding Co. v. County of Los Angeles

54 Cal. 2d 450 · California Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1960

Co. v. … IV, §31; Texas Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.2d 55, 66 [ 338 P.2d 440 ] ; Conlin v. Board of Supervisors, 99 Cal. 17, 21-22 [ 33 P. 753 , 37 Am.St.Rep. 17 , 21 L.R.A. 474 ] ; County of Alameda v.

Foxgate Homeowners' Ass'n v. Bramalea California, Inc.

108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 642 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2001

Proc., § 1858; Hughes v. Board *9 of Architectural Examiners (1998) 17 Cal.4th 763, 775 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 , 952 P.2d 641 ]) should not apply here. … Governing Board (1994) 8 Cal.4th 333, 340 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 109 , 878 P.2d 1321 ].)

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.)

National Advertising Co. v. County of Monterey

1 Cal. 3d 875 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1970

The boards were constructed and erected during the years 1933 to 1950 at a cost varying from $360 to $2,600 each. … Co. v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 43 Cal.2d 121, 126 ; Beverly Oil Co. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 40 Cal.2d 552, 560 ; City of La Mesa v.

People v. Nichols

3 Cal. 3d 150 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1970

(In re Bandmann (1958) 51 Cal.2d 388, 392 [ 333 P.2d 339 ]; Heron v. Riley (1930) 209 Cal. 507, 510-511 [ 289 P. 160 ]; Los Angeles City School Dist. v. Odell (1927) 200 Cal. 637, 641 [ 254 P. 570 ]; Robins v. … (Dunlop v.

Barker Bros., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

10 Cal. 2d 603 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1938

(State Board of Tax Commrs. v. Jackson, 283 U. S. 527 [51 Sup. Ct. 540, 75 L. Ed. 1248 , 73 A. L. R 1464, 75 A. L. R 1536]; Bell’s Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232 [10 Sup. Ct. 533, 33 L. Ed. 892 ].) … The City of Los Angeles relies strongly upon State Board of Tax Commrs. v. Jackson, supra, and Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U. S. 517 [53 Sup. Ct. 481, 77 L. Ed. 929 , 85 A. L.

Schumacher v. Truman

134 Cal. 430 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1901

(Smith v. Yule, 31 Cal. 180 ; 1 Staples v. Fenton, 5 Hun, 172 ; Pope v. Allen, 90 N. Y. 298 ; Holland v. Brown, 140 N. Y. 344 ; Rankin v. Coar, 46 N. J. Eq. 566; Ellison v. Torpin, 44 W. Va. 414 ; Munn v. … (Freeman on Cotenancy, sec. 167; Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586 ; 1 Wilcox v.

Keane v. Smith

4 Cal. 3d 932 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1971

. *936 In Immel v. … There, 10 ballots contained votes for Misch for president of the school board and also for school board member.

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.

Elkins v. Superior Court

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 483 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 2007

Code, § 210.) 14 Respondent relies upon this court’s decision in In re Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 610 , 127 P.3d 28 ] (Brown & Yana) for the proposition that courts have discretion not … (Brown & Yana, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 959 ; see id. at pp. 955-956; Montenegro v.