Case law

Union Ins. Co. v. Am. Fire Ins. Co.

107 Cal. 327 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1895

(May on Insurance, sec. 400; Ruse v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co., 23 N. Y. 516 ; Whitaker v. Farmers’ Union Ins. Co., 29 Barb. 312 ; Lightbody v. North American Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 18 ; City of Davenport v. Peoria etc. … (Brown v. Howard, 1 Cal. 423 ; Taylor v. Castle, 42 Cal. 367 ; Auzerais v. Naglee, 74 Cal. 60 .) Without pursuing the authorities further we are of opinion: 1.

Mercy Hospital & Medical Center v. Farmers Insurance Group of Cos.

15 Cal. 4th 213 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1997

Opinion BROWN, J. … (See People v.

Kruce v. Parlier Winery

208 Cal. 723 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1930

, however, as above noted, that the notes were properly signed by the president, who was also general manager, and by the secretary, under the seal of the corporation, these persons being two of the three members of the board … (Pastene v. Pardini, 135 Cal. 431 [ 67 Pac. 681 ]; Yellow Jacket etc. Co. v. Holbrook, 24 Cal. App. 687 [ 142 Pac. 128 ]; Flint v. Giguiere, 50 Cal. App. 314, 318 [ 195 Pac. 85 ].)

Allied Compensation Insurance v. Industrial Accident Commission

57 Cal. 2d 115 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1961

(a) ; Cooper v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 35 Cal.2d 242, 246 [ 217 P.2d 630 , 18 A.L.R.2d 593 ] ; Hohreiter v. Garrison, 81 Cal.App.2d 384, 399 [ 184 P.2d 323 ].) … State Board of Medical Examiners, supra, p. 246 ; Morgan v. United States, supra, pp. 480-482 ; McGraw Electric Co. v. United States (E.D. Mo.), 120 F.Supp. 354, 358 , affd. 348 U.

Dellapiazza v. Foley

112 Cal. 380 · California Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1896

(Jones v. Clark, 42 Cal. 180 ; Stuart v. Adams, 89 Cal. 367 .) As to the “personal notice of the dissolution” required by the code section cited, see Johnson v. Totten, 3 Cal. 343 , 58 Am. Dec. 412 , and Williams v. … (Smith v. Owens, 21 Cal. 23 ; Brown v. Olmsted, 50 Cal. 165 ; Tolman v. Smith, 85 Cal. 287 ; Savings etc. Soc. v. Burnett, 106 Cal. 514 , and cases there cited.)

Zitny v. State Bar of California

64 Cal. 2d 787 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1966

-In this proceeding petitioner seeks a review of the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the State Bar that he be disbarred. … Findings of fact made by local administrative committees and the Board of Governors are not binding on this court, and we will weigh the evidence upon which the findings rest. (Schullman v.

White v. Fratt

13 Cal. 521 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

Of this class of cases is Ranelaugh v. Hayes, 1 Vernon, 189; and Champion v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 389 ; and Chamberlain v. Blue, 6 Blackf. 491 , *524 maintains the same principle. … (Churchill v. Sunt, 3 Denio, 321 ,) is a leading case.

Chase v. City Treasurer of Los Angeles

122 Cal. 540 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1898

An act required that notice of awards of contracts by the board of supervisors should be published for five days. It was published, but without a previous order of the board. … See, also, Donnelly v. Tillman, supra, followed in many cases; Napa v. Easterby, supra; Shipman v. Forbes, supra; Hewes v. Reis, 40 Cal. 255 .)

People v. Plyler

121 Cal. 160 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1898

(People v. Sprague, 53 Cal. 494 ; People v. Soto, 59 Cal. 368 .) The proposed instruction is an accurate exposition of its meaning, and should have been given. … (People v. Dodge, 28 Cal. 445 ; People v. McCrory, 41 Cal. 458 ; People v. Brown, 46 Cal. 103 .)

People v. Weineke

122 Cal. 535 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1898

(People v. Melone, 73 Cal. 574 ; San Francisco v. Ford, 52 Cal. 198 ; People v. Burkhart, 76 Cal. 606 . See, also, Board of Commrs. v. Van Slyck, 52 Kan. 622 .) Appellant claims that San Francisco v. … People v. Van Ness, 79 Cal. 86 , 12 Am. St. Rep. 134 , is also relied upon by appellant.

Morro Palisades Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

52 Cal. 2d 397 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1959

(See County of Placer v. Aetna Cas. etc. Co. (1958), 50 Cal.2d 182, 186 [1] [ 323 P.2d 753 ] ; Fernelius v. Pierce (1943), 22 Cal.2d 226, 245 [7] [ 138 P.2d 12 ] ; Milliron v. … As declared in County of Los Angeles v.

People v. Miller

57 Cal. 2d 821 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1962

(See e.g., People v. Davis (1957) 48 Cal.2d 241, 250 [10] [ 309 P.2d 1 ].) … Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F.2d 265, 269 .” (Italics added.) (National Labor Relations Board v. Walton Mfg.

Stevens v. Truman

127 Cal. 155 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1899

(Smith v. Strother, 68 Cal. 194 ; James v. McCann, 93 Cal. 513 ; Taylor v. McConigle, 120 Cal. 123 . See, also, Los Angeles v. Pomeroy, 124 Cal. 597 .) … Spencer, 68 Cal. 199 ; Barkly v. *160 Copeland, 86 Cal. 493 ; James v. McCann, supra; Taylor v. McConigle, supra; Los Angeles v. Pomeroy, supra.

Williamson v. Monroe

174 Cal. 462 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1917

The decision in Barton v. Brown, 68 Cal. 11 , [ 8 Pac. 517 ], was made prior to the amendment adding the proviso to section 3440. It has no application to sales of exempt property made after that amendment. … (Williams v. Borgwardt, 119 Cal. 80, 82 , [ 51 Pac. 15 ]; Curtner v. Lyndon, 128 Cal. 35 , [ 60 Pac. 462 ].)

Thomson v. Call

38 Cal. 3d 633 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1985

Co. v. … (Moody v. Shuffleton, supra, 203 Cal. 100 ; Berka v. Woodward, supra, 125 Cal. at pp. 121, 123-124; Domingos v. Supervisors of Sacramento Co. (1877) 51 Cal. 608 ; Salada Beach etc. Dist. v.

People v. Diehl

62 Cal. 2d 114 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1964

(People v. Casillas, 61 Cal.2d 344, 346 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 721 , 392 P.2d 521 ] ; People v. Tucker, 61 Cal.2d 828, 831 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 395 P.2d 449 ]; see also People v. … (Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477 [ 83 S.Ct. 768 , 9 L.Ed.2d 892 ].) “Under the findings a denial of the right to appeal would present serious constitutional problems.

Kyne v. Kyne

16 Cal. 2d 436 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1940

(Johnston v. Russell, 37 Cal. 670 ; Gridley v. Dorn, 57 Cal. 78 [ 40 Am. Rep. 110 ]; Schenck v. Hirshfeld, 22 Cal. App. 709 [ 136 Pac. 725 ]; Matthews v. Lopus, 24 Cal. App. 63 [ 140 Pac. 306 ]; 6 Cal. … They are eases (see Catts v. Phalen, 43 U. S. 376 [ 11 L. Ed. 306 ]; Kearney v. Webb, 278 Ill. 17 [ 115 N. E. 844 , 3 A. L. R 1631]; Re Brown, 147 Kan. 395 [ 76 Pac. (2d) 857 , 116 A. L. R. 1012]; Matta v.

Goodsell v. Ashworth

115 Cal. 222 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1896

(Goodsell v. Ashworth, 96 Cal. 397 .) … On the other hand, the same act that provides for an appeal to the board of supervisors gives the appellant a remedy by action upon the bond of the superintendent and his sureties.”

People v. Woods

190 Cal. 513 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1923

In Oliver v. … In Gibbons v.

Biakanja v. Irving

49 Cal. 2d 647 · California Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1958

In Buckley v. … (Kolberg v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 93 Cal.App. 609, 613 [ 269 P. 975 ]; Brown v. Bigelow, 325 Mass. 4 [ 88 N.E.2d 542, 543 ]; Ellis v. Lindmark, 177 Minn. 390 [ 225 N.W. 395, 396-397 ]; Dunn v.