Case law

Payne v. Commercial National Bank

177 Cal. 68 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1917

(See in this connection Brown on Parol Evidence, pp. 116-120; 2 Elliott on Contracts, secs. 1655-1658; 1 Beach on Modern Law of Contracts, sec. 742.) This was recognized in the opinion of Poorman v. … (See, also, Hall v. Bartlett, 158 Cal. 641 , [ 112 Pac. 176 ]; Brandon v. Leddy, 67 Cal. 43 , [ 7 Pac. 33 ].)

People ex rel. Chrystal v. Cook

44 Cal. 638 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

It was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in Knox v. Lee and Parker v. … The bonds purport to be payable in money generally, and as there is nothing in the Act under which they were issued which requires payment to be made in any specified kind of money, the Act authorizing and requiring the Board

People v. Tucker

61 Cal. 2d 828 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1964

(Henshall v. Coburn, 177 Cal. 50, 54 [ 169 P. 1014 ]; Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Fink, 141 Cal. App.2d 332, 335 [ 296 P.2d 843 ]; Fleschler v. Strauss, 15 Cal. App.2d 735, 739 [ 60 P.2d 193 ]; see also Witkin, Cal. … (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.

Stanford v. State Bar

16 Cal. 2d 252 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1940

This is a petition to review a recoinmendation of the Board of Governors of The State Bar that petitioner be disbarred. … (See Stanford v. The State Bar, 15 Cal. (2d) 721 [ 104 Pac. (2d) 635 ].) No useful purpose can be served by further consideration' of this petition for review. The proceeding for review is dismissed.

City and County of S.F. v. The Regents of the University of Cal.

California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2019

For example, in Board of Trustees v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 45 (Board of Trustees), the court upheld a municipal permitting requirement as applied to a circus held on CSU property. … In City of Santa Ana v. Board of Ed. of City of Santa Ana (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 178 and Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v.

Beaudreau v. Superior Court

14 Cal. 3d 448 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1975

Defendants are the Los Angeles Unified School District (District), a public entity, seven members of the District’s governing board (Los Angeles City Board of Education), the District’s superintendent of schools (William … (See, e.g., Goss v. Lopez, supra, 419 U.S. at pp. 572-576 [42 L.Ed.2d at pp. 733-736]; Perry v. Sindermann, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 601; Board of Regents v.

Valencia v. Couch

32 Cal. 339 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

Valencia with a fence, and she had determined to abandon the contest and withdraw from the field, the defendant knocked off two or three boards to afford her a place of exit. … It is suggested by counsel that the Court below was controlled in its judgment by the case of Thompson v. Smith, 28 Cal. 527 .

Blackwood v. Cutting Packing Co.

76 Cal. 212 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 1888

(free on board cars at) Haywards. “ Cutting Packing Company, “By A. D. … (See Hires v. Hurff, 39 N. J. L. 10; Galloway v. Week, 54 Wis. 608 ; Commercial Bank v. Gillette, 90 Ind. 268 ; Hutchinson v. Railroad Co., 59 N. H. 489; Fry v. Mobile Bank, 75 Ala. 474 , Allen v.

Kast v. Miller & Lux

159 Cal. 723 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 1911

(Mechem on Agency, sec. 101; Parker v. Pond, 121 Ala. 529 , [ 25 South. 898 ]; O’Leary v. German A. Ins. Co., 100 Iowa 390 , [ 69 N. W. 686 ]; Brown v. Cone, 80 App. Div. 413 , [ 81 N. Y. Supp. 89 ]; *728 Lawall v. … (People v. Dye, 75 Cal. 108 , [ 16 Pac. 537 ]; Hubback v. Ross, 96 Cal. 426 , [ 31 Pac. 353 ]; Bergtholdt v. Porter Bros., 114 Cal. 681 , [ 46 Pac. 738 ]; Ferris v. Baker, 127 Cal. 520 , [ 59 Pac. 937 ]; Petterson v.

San Joaquin Light & Power Corp. v. City of Madera

175 Cal. 229 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1917

In all material aspects the case here presented is the same as that of Arthur v. City of Petaluma, ante, p. 216, [ 165 Pac. 698 ]. … It is sought to enforce payment against revenues of the fiscal year 1915-16 resulting from tax levies made by the board of trustees of the city, without any authorization by the electors, of a claim of $2,108.75 for electrical

Kelly v. Central Pacific Railroad

74 Cal. 557 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1888

(Mortlock v. Buller, 10 Ves. *308; Cadman v. Horner, 18 Ves. 11; Seymour v. Delancy, 6 Johns. Ch. *222; Jackson v. Ashton, 11 Pet. 248 ; Barksdale v. Payne, Riley, *178; Frisby v. Ballance, 4 Scam. 299 ; Clement v. … If, therefore, the case of Morrison v. Lods is to be construed as affirming any such doctrine, it does not state the law correctly. The case of Board of Commissioners v.

People v. Latona

2 Cal. 2d 714 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1935

(People v. … In People v. Burke, 18 Cal.

Hamilton v. Bank of America

41 Cal. 2d 166 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1953

(See Board of Soc. Welfare v. County of Los Angeles (1945), 27 Cal.2d 81, 86, 88-89 [ 162 P.2d 630 ].) I, too, would affirm the judgment.

City of Eureka v. Armstrong

83 Cal. 623 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1890

There is nothing in that opinion inconsistent with People v. Reed, 81 Cal. 70 , or City of Eureka v. Croghan, 81 Cal. 524 . … If the deed did not constitute a dedication (see Kittle v.

City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando

14 Cal. 3d 199 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1975

(Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., supra; Flournoy v. State of California, supra; State of California v. Marin Mun. Water Dist., supra.) … (But see Shelton v. City of Los Angeles (1929) 206 Cal. 544, 548-549 [ 275 P. 421 ]; Mesmerv. Board etc. (1913) 23 Cal.App. 578, 582-583 [ 138 P. 935 ] (autonomous powers of plaintiff’s water board); Ide v.

Freelon v. Adrian

161 Cal. 13 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1911

Barber on March 2, 1903, and all of which streets were vacated and discontinued by order of the board of supervisors of Santa Barbara County on that day. … (Sichler v. Look, 93 Cal. 600 -610, [ 29 Pac. 220 ].)

Foote v. State Bar

37 Cal. 2d 127 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1951

(Lady v. State Bar, 28 Cal.2d 497, 504 [ 170 P.2d 460 ]; Pickering v. State Bar, 24 Cal.2d 141, 145 [ 148 P.2d 1 ]; Utz v. State Bar, 21 Cal.2d 100, 105 [ 130 P.2d 377 ].) … (Stephens v. State Bar, 19 Cal.2d 580 [ 122 P.2d 549 ]; Marsh v. State Bar, 210 Cal. 303, 307 [ 291 P. 583 ].)

State of Ohio ex rel. Squire v. Porter

21 Cal. 2d 45 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1942

Hull, 75 Ohio St. 502 [ 80 N.E. 11]; Brown v. Hitchcock, 36 Ohio St. 667 ; Squire v. … (National Bank of Lima v. Squire, 3 Ohio Op. 531 .) The cause of action accrues to the creditor when the bank fails to meet its obligations in the ordinary course of business (Squire v. Abbott, supra; cf. Brown v.

Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC

58 Cal. 4th 329 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2013

In Board of Education v. Barnette, supra, 319 U.S. 624 (Barnette), the high court struck down a West Virginia law requiring children in public schools to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. … Pharmacy Board v. Va.

Clark v. City of Los AngeLes

160 Cal. 30 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1911

Ed. 353 ]; Mayrhofer v. Board, 89 Cal. 112 , [ 23 Am. St. Rep. 451 , 26 P. 646 ]; Skelly v. School Dist., 103 Cal. 655 , [ 37 P. 643 ]; Witter v. School Dist., 121 Cal. 350 , [ 66 Am. St. Rep. 33 , 53 P. 905 ].) … (Frost v. Central City, 134 Ky. 434 , [ 120 S.W. 367 ]; Austin v. Valle, (Tex. Civ. App.) 71 S.W. 414 ; Dudley v. Lake, 80 Fed. 677 , [ 26 C.C.A. 82 ]; Corning v. Meade Co., 102 Fed. 57 , [ 42 C.C.A. 154 ]; Board v.