Case law

McCreery v. Everding

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

In Bowman v. … In Brown v.

Kohler v. Agassiz

99 Cal. 9 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1893

Co. v. Johnson, 93 Cal. 538 ; 27 Am. St. Rep. 215 ; West v. Crawford, 80 Cal. 19 .) … Co. v. Callender, 94 Cal. 120 ; 28 Am. St. Rep. 99 , the contract was to pay “at such times and in such manner as may be determined by the board of directors of said corporation to be hereafter chosen.”

Hildreth v. White

66 Cal. 549 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1885

The description of the premises in controversy was sufficient. ( Whitney v. Buckman, 19 Cal. 300 ; Castro v. Gill, 5 Cal. 40 ; Stanley v. Green, 12 Cal. 148 ; People v. Leet, 23 Cal. 163 .) The complaint was sufficient. … house and corral known as ‘ McKay’s winter quarters ’ is situated, and the lands enclosed by said corral, being about two acres of land, more or less, together with said house and corral; the said house being a one-story board

Bickel v. City of Piedmont

16 Cal. 4th 1040 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1997

Governing Board (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 314, 322 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 812 ]; see Civ. Code, § 3513). … Brown, Jr., contained in Governor’s chaptered bill file, ch. 1113 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.).)

McCoulou v. Vejar

212 Cal. 49 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1931

In this connection see Benjamin v. Noonan, 207 Cal. 279, 282, 283 [ 277 Pac. 1045 ] ; Krause v. Rarity, 210 Cal. 644 [ 293 Pac. 62 ] ; Buzby v. Lewis, 103 Cal. App. 124, 126, 127 [ 283 Pac. 958 ] ; Armstrong v. … App. 465, 471 [ 284 Pac. 1083 ] ; Davis v. Brown, 92 Cal.

Malone v. Johnson

5 Cal. Unrep. 575 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1897

The contract of April 1, 1891, which superseded that of March 31, 1887, was the ground of the claim made against defendant in both complaints: Anderson v. Mayers, 50 Cal. 525 . … Bank v. Ginty, 108 Cal. 148, 153 , 41 Pac. 38 ; Brown v. Warren, 43 N. H. 430. See Spreckels v. Bank, 113 Cal. 272 , 54 Am. St. Rep. 348 , 33 L. R. A. 459, 45 Pac. 329, 331 .

Murdock v. Murdock

7 Cal. 511 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

In the case of Williams v. … It was ruled in Juives v.

Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Commission

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 654 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1999

(Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 438 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 574 , 777 P.2d 610 ].)” We therefore proceed to consider whether ABC has standing to assert such a challenge on behalf of its members. … Under these circumstances, the Board’s action is entitled to deference.” {Ibid.)

Mooney v. Pickett

4 Cal. 3d 669 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1971

A. v. … Welfare v. County of L.

In Re Wells

35 Cal. 2d 889 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1950

(See Howard v. Kentucky (1906), supra, p. 176 of 200 U.S.; State v. … In People v.

Crockett Land & Cattle Co. v. American Toll Bridge Co.

211 Cal. 361 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1931

This court held in McCarty v. Southern Pac. … (North Fork Water Co. v. Edwards, 121 Cal. 662 [ 54 Pac. 69 ]; Hamaker v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 59 Cal. App. 642 [ 211 Pac. 265 ].)

Kirkpatrick v. Roderick P.

7 Cal. 3d 801 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1972

As Bassett [People v. … In People v.

In Re Crooks

51 Cal. 3d 1090 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1990

(Res. of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Cal. adopted Jan. 24, 1987, re Amend, of Rule 558.) … Paule, was adopted by the Board of Governors of the State Bar elfective September 1, 1989.

Boehme v. State Bar

47 Cal. 3d 448 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1988

For good cause, the committee of the Board of Governors may waive compliance with this rule.” 2 The Board of Governors waived compliance in this case. … (See, e.g., Frazer v.

Ex parte Wadleigh

82 Cal. 518 · California Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1890

It does not take away or interfere v ith such power in any way. The statute simply fixes the term of imprisonment in certain cases and upon certain conditions. … This is subject, however, to the right of the board of prison directors to determine, before the expiration of his term, that he has, by subsequent misconduct, forfeited his right to such deductions.

Barry v. State Bar of Cal.

212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 2017

(Fairbanks v. … (Brown v. Desert Christian Center (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 733.)

San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City & County of San Francisco

42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 868 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 2006

As was stated in Almassy v. L.A. … The Charter thus provides a rule of impasse resolution that differs from that generally provided to local government employees through the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. (Gov. Code, § 3500 et seq.)

Flynn v. Flynn

42 Cal. 2d 55 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1954

(Hough v. Hough, 26 Cal.2d 605, 614 [ 160 P.2d 15 ] ; Estate of Belknap, 66 Cal.App.2d 644 , 651-652 [ 152 P.2d 657 ]; Baxter v. Baxter, 3 Cal.App.2d 676, 681 [ 40 P.2d 536 ]; Brown v. … {Adams v. Adams, supra, 29 Cal.2d 621, 624 ; Sanborn v. Sanborn, 3 Cal.App.2d 437 [ 39 P.2d 830 ] ; Brown v. Brown, 83 Cal.App. 74 [ 256 P. 595 ].)

Grigsby v. Napa County

36 Cal. 585 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1869

The summons was not, in fact, served until May 14th, 1868; and the excuse for this long delay is that the plaintiff and his attorney were lulled into this long repose by the conduct of the Board of Supervisors in vacating … The suit in equity came to this Court on appeal, and was decided at the October Term, 1866, (Grigsby v.

Legislature v. Reinecke

10 Cal. 3d 396 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1973

IV, § 6; Silver v. Brown (1965) 63 Cal.2d 270, 279 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 308 , 405 P.2d 132 ].) 4. … IV, § 6; Silver v. Brown, supra, 63 Cal.2d 270, 279 .)