Case law

Ellis v. Eastman

32 Cal. 447 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

(Smith v. Morse, 2 Cal. 524 ; Heydenfeldt v. Hitchcock, 15 Cal. 514 ; The People ex rel. The Board of State Harbor Commissioners v. The Broadway Wharf Company, 31 Cal. 33 .)

HESLEP v. City of Sacramento

2 Cal. 580 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1852

during the recent difficulties, and as a testimony of our high appreciation of the manner in which he has discharged his duties as Chief Magistrate of this city, an appropriation of ten thousand dollars be made by this board … (Smith v. Ware, 13 Johns.) If it should be contended that this appropriation was a gratuity or gift, the argument is answered by the fact, that there is no delivery or acceptance. Judgment affirmed.

Reina v. Cross

6 Cal. 29 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

That defendant received said freight on board his vessel and departed on the voyage, but did not perform his contract, because of the loss of said vessel at sea. … See also Samson v. Ball, 4 Dallas, 459 ; Giles v. Brig Cynthia, 1 Pet. Admr. R , 203, et seq.; Chinot v. Barker, 2 John. R., 346; Gillan v. Simkin, 4 Camp., 241; Harris v. Rand, 4 N. Hamp.

Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, LLC

39 Cal. 4th 223 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 2006

(Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 438 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 574 , 111 P.2d 610 ]; see also Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. … San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 361 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 654 , 981 P.2d 499 ]; McKinny v. Board of Trustees (1982) 31 Cal.3d 79, 90 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 549 , 642 P.2d 460 ].)

Flood v. Templeton

148 Cal. 374 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1905

Such was the case in Owens v. McNally, 113 Cal. 444 , [ 45 Pac. 710 ], and that, also, of McCabe v. Healy, 138 Cal. 81 , [ 70 Pac. 1008 ]. It is said in Jaffe v. … In Healy v. Simpson, 113 Mo. 340 , [ 20 S.

Champion Gold Mining Co. v. Champion Mines

164 Cal. 205 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1912

(See Oursler v. Thacher, 152 Cal. 739 , [ 93 Pac. 1007 ] ; Glock v. Howard, 123 Cal. 1 , [ 69 Am. St. Rep. 17 , 43 L. R. … (See Hegler v. Eddy, 53 Cal. 597 .)

Estate of Boeson

201 Cal. 36 · California Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1927

(See Locke Paddon v. Locke Paddon, 194 Cal. 73 [ 227 Pac. 715 ]; Loveren v. Loveren, 106 Cal. 509 [ 39 Pac. 801 ]; McCahan v. McCahan, 47 Cal. App. 176 [ 190 Pac. 460 ].) … (Wells v. Stout, 9 Cal. 479 ; Sargent v. Sargent, 106 Cal. 541 [ 39 Pac. 931 ] ; Jones v. Lamont, 118 Cal. 499 [ 62 Am. St. Rep. 251 , 50 Pac. 766 ] ; Estate of Martin, 166 Cal. 399 [ 137 Pac. 2 ] ; Brown v.

Longshore v. County of Ventura

25 Cal. 3d 14 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1979

(Miller v. State of California (1977) 18 Cal.3d 808, 814 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 557 P.2d 970 ]; Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 641 [ 234 P.2d 981 ].) … (McNeil v. Board of Retirement (1958) 51 Cal.2d 278, 285-286 [ 332 P.2d 281 ]; Boren v. State Personnel Board, supra, 37 Cal.2d 634, 643 .) In Martin v.

Khawar v. Globe International, Inc.

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 178 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1998

(Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., supra, 48 Cal.3d 711, 743 .) … Daily Hampshire Gazette (1985) 395 Mass. 32 [ 478 N.E.2d 721 ]; Brown v. Courier Herald Pub. Co., Inc. (S.D.Ga. 1988) 700 F.Supp. 534 ; Layne v.

Sunder v. Collins

219 Cal. 430 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1933

(Kavanagh v. Board of Police Fund Commrs., 134 Cal. 50 [ 66 Pac. 36]; 20 Cal. Jur. 999.)

In Re Estate of Espinosa

179 Cal. 189 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1918

(Cosgriff v. Board of Election Commrs., 151 Cal. 407 , [ 91 Pac. 98 ].) Appellant also denies the court’s jurisdiction because of the alleged insufficiency of the citation to inform him of the contents of the petition.

People v. Phillips

41 Cal. 3d 29 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1985

(See People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 538-545 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ].) … These identical errors were considered recently in People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512 .

McCarthy v. Gaston Ridge Mill & Mining Co.

144 Cal. 542 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1904

(Sullivan v. Royer, 72 Cal. 248 ; 1 R ichardson v. City of Eureka, 110 Cal. 441 .) … In support of its claim that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover his costs, the appellant has cited Himes v. Johnson, 61 Cal. 259 , and Brown v. Delavau, 63 Cal. 303 .

Mullan v. State

114 Cal. 578 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1896

(Whiting v. Townsend, 57 Cal. 515 ; Faekler v. Wright, 86 Cal. 210 ; Cole v. Segraves, 88 Cal. 105 .) … Lithographing Co. v.

De Frieze v. Quint

94 Cal. 653 · California Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1892

Co. v. Deferrari, 62 Cal. 160 ; Dodge v. Walley, 22 Cal. 228 ; 83 Am. Dec. 61 ; Haffley v. Maier, 15 Cal. 13 ; Clark v. Baker, 14 Cal. 613 ; 76 Am. … Miller constructed a shed on the land, sufficient to shelter three cows, by setting a post in the ground at each of the four corners and covering it with boards, and also boarding up three sides of it, but leaving one side

Cal. Drive-In Restaurant Assn. v. Clark

22 Cal. 2d 287 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1943

In the recent case of Williams v. … (Boone v. Kingsbury, 206 Cal. 148 [ 273 P. 797 ]; California E. Com. v. Black-Foxe Military Inst., 43 Cal.App.2dSupp. 868 [ 110 P.2d 729 ]; Hodge v. McCall, 185 Cal. 330 [ 197 P. 86 ]; Bank of Italy v.

Wright v. Superior Court

139 Cal. 469 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1903

(Bond v. Worley, 26 Mo. 254 ; Hall v. Joiner, 1 S. C. 190; Rindskopf v. Platto, 29 Fed. 132 ; Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 9 Blatch. 316; Riopelle v. Doellner, 26 Mich. 102 ; Preston v. Smith, 26 Fed. 884 ; Reddington v. … Lanahan, 59 Md. 440 ; Paton v. Majors, 46 Fed. 210 ; Babbott v. Tewksbury, 46 Fed. 86 ; Drexel v. Berney, 14 Fed. 268 .) But in Brown v. Swann, 10 Pet. 500 , and Ex parte Boyd, 102 H.

Tognazzini v. Jordan

165 Cal. 19 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1913

(California Telephone & Light Co. v. Jordan, 19 Cal. App. 536 , [ 126 Pac. 598 ].) … (Commonwealth v. Summerville, 204 Pa. St. 304, [ 54 Atl. 27 ]; Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 191 , [ 6 L. Ed. 23 ]; Brown v. Maryland, 25 U. S. (12 Wheat.) 438 , [ 6 L. Ed. 678 ] ; Tinkham v. Tapscott, 17 N.

Colegrove Water Co. v. City of Hollywood

151 Cal. 425 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1907

The Municipal Corporation Act gives to boards of trustees of cities of the sixth class “the management and control of . . . highways.” (Stats. 1903, p. 93.) … (Barbour v. Flick, 126 Cal. 632 , [ 59 Pac. 122 ] ; Flinn v. Ferry, 127 Cal. 648 , [ 60 Pac. 434 ] ; McDougald v. Hulet, 132 Cal. 154 , [ 64 Pac. 278 ] ; Carroll v. Briggs, 138 Cal. 452 , [ 71 Pac. 501 ].)

First Nat'l Fin. Corp. v. Five-O Drilling Co.

209 Cal. 569 · California Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1930

In addition to being the secretary of the appellant company, Kelley was also a member of its board of directors. … (Betts v. Southern Cal. etc. Exchange, supra; Abbott v. ’76 L. & W. Co., 87 Cal. 323, 328 [25 Pae. 693]; Crowley v. Genesee Min. Co 55 Cal. 273, 275, 276 ; 7 A. L. K. 1459.) In Ellet v. Lo. Altos etc.