Case law

Gumilla v. Industrial Accident Commission

187 Cal. 638 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1921

(Holabird v. Railroad Com., 171 Cal. 691 , [ 154 Pac. 831 ]; Gauld v. Board of Supervisors, 122 Cal. 18, [ 54 Pac. 272 ].)

Kirkwood v. Kelly

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

(Packer v. 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. City of Fresno, 42 Cal.2d 180, 183 [ 265 P.2d 884 ].) … Respondent cites the case of Shaw v.

Frazure v. Fitzpatrick

21 Cal. 2d 851 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1943

However, as noted in the case of Hotaling v. … Proc., § 1850; Young v. Benton, 21 Cal.App. 382 [ 131 P. 1051 ]; Whitlow v. Durst, 20 Cal.2d 523 [ 127 P.2d 530 ].)

Washer v. Independent Mining & Development Co.

142 Cal. 702 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1904

(See Warvelle on Vendors, 2d ed., see. 649; Dean v. … (Morgan v. Overman S. M. Co., 37 Cal. 537 ; Flint v. Cadenasso, 64 Cal. 83 ; Buckley v. Gray, 110 Cal. 339 ; 2 Brewer v. Dyer, 7 Cush. 337 .)

Pevonak v. City & County of San Francisco

206 Cal. 648 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1929

Street Company tracks, and as it did so a group of people, estimated at ten or twelve, walked across the Municipal tracks to a position between the Market Street Company tracks and the Municipal tracks for the purpose of boarding … (Lewis v. Young Men’s Christian Assn., ante, p. 115 [ 273 Pac. 580 ].) The presence or absence of negligence cannot be determined alone by legal precedents.

People v. Barksdale

8 Cal. 3d 320 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1972

(Connally v. General Construction Co. (1926) 269 U.S. 385, 391 [ 70 L.Ed. 322, 328 , 46 S.Ct. 126 ]; see also Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction (1961) 368 U.S. 278, 287 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 285, 292 , 82 S.Ct. 275 ]; Bouie v. … (Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners (1962) 57 Cal.2d 228, 238 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 368 P.2d 101 ]; Dillon v. Municipal Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 860, 872 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 777 , 484 P.2d 945 ].)

People v. Kennedy

31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 160 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2005

(People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 401.) The trial court is not required to delete any inapplicable factors from the list of statutory factors presented to the jury. (People v. … Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 401.) The federal Constitution does not require intercase proportionality review. (People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 402.)

Marr v. Southern California Gas Co.

198 Cal. 278 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1926

Board of Commrs., etc., 48 Colo. 104 [20 Ann. Cas. 1109, 110 Pac. 197 ]). 10. … (Baxter v. Vineland Irr. Dist., 136 Cal. 185 [ 68 Pac. 601 ]; Miller v. Perris Irr. Dist., 99 Fed. 143 ; Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Shepard, 185 U. S. 1 [ 46 L. Ed. 773 , 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 531, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes].)

California Housing Finance Agency v. Elliott

17 Cal. 3d 575 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1976

(Mannheim v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 678, 691 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 478 P.2d 17 ]; The Housing Authority v. Dockweiler, supra, 14 Cal.2d 437, 449-450 ; Board of Supervisors v. … Finally, in Board of Supervisors v.

Smith v. Eureka Flour Mills Co.

6 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

In both these sections corporations are prohibited from issuing bills or notes for circulation as money; to this expression we gave a construction in the case of Magee & Beals v. … The next objection is that the Act of 1853 requires the corporate powers to be exercised by a board of three trustees, who should have executed the note.

Imperial Water Co. No. 3 v. Hall

199 Cal. 556 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1926

The writ is, however, directed to the court or to the officer thereof by whom it is seeking to enforce the judgment.” *561 To the same effect are Wood v. Board of Fire Commissioners, 50 Cal. … App. 168, 169 [ 216 Pac. 386 ], and Lickley v. County Board of Education, 62 Cal.

Dawson v. Town of Los Altos Hills

16 Cal. 3d 676 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1976

{Duncan v. Ramish, 142 Cal. 692 . . . .)” {Larsen v. San Francisco, supra, 182 Cal. 1, 15 .) 10 (See also Rutledge v. City of Eureka, supra, 195 Cal. 404, 416-417 ; cf. Frank v. Maguire, supra, 201 Cal. 414, 423 .) … Mayor etc. of Sacramento (1859) 12 Cal. 76 [action for recovery of money paid pursuant to assessment]; Harrison v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 852 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 828 ] [injunction]; Auburn Lbr. Co. v.

Murphy v. City of San Luis Obispo

39 L.R.A. 444 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1898

In the case of Skinner v. … In Tebbe v. Smith, 108 Cal. 101 , Mr.

Potter v. Pacific Coast Lumber Co.

37 Cal. 2d 592 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1951

The terms of sale specified grade, widths', and surfacing of the lumber and a stated»price per *595 1,000 board feet “F.O.B. mill,” with 2 per cent discount for cash. … Engineering Co. v. Beam, 23 Cal.App. 164, 171 [ 137 P. 624 ]; see 1 C.J.S. § 32(b), pp. 515-517; 1 Cal.Jur. § 7, p. 131; Berger v. Lane, supra, 190 Cal. 443, 450-451 ; Shortell v.

Oakland Paving Co. v. Rier

52 Cal. 270 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

The resolution of intention was the letter of authority in the premises, and the City Council had no power to restrict nor enlarge the same. ( Whitmore v. City of Stockton, 40 Cal. 554 ; Dougherty v. … The resolution of the Board of Trustees of plaintiff was wholly illegal and void, as attempting to confer on Walker the whole power of said Board in reference to Oakland street work and for an unlimited length of time.

Perrine v. Municipal Court

5 Cal. 3d 656 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1971

(Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 [42L.Ed. 1002, 18 S.Ct. 573 ]; Hollingsworth v. Board of Medical Examiners, 188 Cal.App.2d 172 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 343 ]; see Morrison v. … State Board of Education, 1 Cal.3d 214, 220-230 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 461 P.2d 375 ].) Promotion of public morality is a legitimate aspect of the police power. (See Near v.

Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV

52 Cal. 3d 1142 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1991

(Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 724; People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1010 [ 239 Cal.Rptr. 656 , 741 P.2d 154 ].) … (Brown v. Artery Organization, Inc.

Moore v. Conliffe

7 Cal. 4th 634 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1994

More recently, the court again declined to expand a statutory privilege in Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ]. … See Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., supra, 48 Cal.3d 711, 728-729 , footnote 15. Those citations were: “Perkins vs. Mitchell, 31 Barb., p. 461; Lewis vs. Chapman, 16 N.Y., p. 369; Thorn vs.

McCreery v. Everding

44 Cal. 246 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

In Bowman v. … In Brown v.

Barton v. State Bar

213 Cal. 186 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1931

show cause why he should not be disbarred, suspended or reproved by reason of his conduct, alleged to involve moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption and the violation of the rules of professional conduct adopted by the board … As an illustration, he points to the proceeding Barton v.