Case law

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.

W. F. Boardman Co. v. Petch

186 Cal. 476 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1921

In Seymour v. … (Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554, 562 , [ 74 Pac. 44 ].)

Fox Bakersfield Theatre Corp. v. City of Bakersfield

36 Cal. 2d 136 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1950

(Perry v. Jordan, 34 Cal.2d 87 [ 207 P.2d 47 ]; Brown v. Jordan, 12 Cal.2d 75 [ 82 P.2d 450 ]; Epperson v. Jordan, 12 Cal.2d 61 [ 82 P.2d 445 ]; California Teachers’ Assn. v. … As said in Brown v.

People v. Latona

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

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

Stringer v. Davis

30 Cal. 318 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1866

To render such a mortgage valid it must appear among other matters that the furniture and upholstery was actually used in a hotel or public boarding house. … (Denver v. Burton, 28 Cal. 550 .) It is unnecessary to repeat here the language of the answer, in which this allegation of the complaint is denied and which was held insufficient by the Court below.

Maloney v. Hefer

75 Cal. 422 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1888

(Ackley v. Chamberlain, 16 Cal. 182 ; 76 Am. Dec. 516 ; Gregg v. Bostwick, 33 Cal. 220 ; 91 Am. Dec. 637 .) … (Mann v. Kugers, 35 Cal. 319 .) In Tiernan v.

People v. Cummings

114 Cal. 437 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1896

[In one case from Indiana (State v. Snyder, 66 Ind. 203 ), this rule seems to have been relaxed to the extent of holding that the fraudulent obtaining of board and lodging by false pretenses was within the statute. … Snyder, supra, which is simply to the effect that the statute included the fraudulent obtaining of board and lodging; and the other is that of Regina v. Burton, 54 L. T., N.

Beagle v. Vasold

65 Cal. 2d 166 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1966

Dunn *174 (1962) 140 Mont. 181 [ 368 P.2d 917 ] ; Johnson v. Brown (1959) 75 Nev. 437 [ 345 P.2d 754 ]; Grossnickle v. Village of Germantown (1965) 3 Ohio St.2d 96 [ 209 N.E.2d 442 ]; Edwards v. … Counsel assumes “the risk of overpersuasion” (Brown, J., in Hall v. Burkert (1962) 117 Ohio App. 527 [ 193 N.E.2d 167, 169 ]).

Lamb v. McMullen

157 Cal. 14 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1909

This case is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court in a proceeding in certiorari to review the proceedings of the board of supervisors of Orange County, whereby the Newbert Protection District was organized under … For the reasons given in the opinion in Keech v. Joplin, it should have been taken to the district court of appeal. That court has the appellate jurisdiction in certiorari proceedings.

Smith v. Moynihan

44 Cal. 53 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

In Reynolds v. … See, also, to the same point, Krider v. Lafferty, 1 Wharton R. 314, and Edgerly v. Emerson, 3 Foster R. 564.) Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed.

People v. May

44 Cal. 3d 309 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1988

For example, Harris v. New York, supra, 401 U.S. 222, 223-224 [], relief] oh Walder v. … In Disbrow , as in People v.

People v. Jordan

42 Cal. 3d 308 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1986

Gossman (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 184, 195 [ 126 P.2d 178 ]; Brown v. Newby (1940) 39 Cal.App.2d 615, 618 [ 103 P.2d 1018 ]; see also 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) §§ 275-281, pp. 286-293.) … (See People v. Brown (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 728, 744 [ 215 Cal.Rptr. 465 ]; People v. Benton (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 92, 102 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 12 ].)

Hart v. Buckley

164 Cal. 160 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1912

(Brown v. Crown G. M. Co., 150 Cal. 384 , [ 89 Pac. 86 ], and cases cited.) The evidence was therefore relevant to the issue, and there was no variance between this proof and the allegations.

Eppinger v. Kendrick

114 Cal. 620 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1896

That inconsistent defenses and hypothetical pleadings are permitted, see Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 679 , et seq. … In Law v.

Pfeiffer v. Regents of the University of California

74 Cal. 156 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1887

(See also 3 Kent’s Com., 11th ed., 554; Freeman on Cotenancy, sec. 198; Adam v. Briggs Iron Co., 7 Cush. 361 ; Marshall v. Trumbull, 28 Conn. 183 ; 73 Am. … But they argue that logically the rule ought to be different in this state on account of certain decisions made by this court (about another matter), in Stark v. Barrett, 15 Cal. 361 , Gates v.

Bentson v. State Bar

216 Cal. 58 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1932

The Board of Governors, after a further hearing, adopted the findings of the committee and made a like recommendation. … (Fish v. State Bar, 214 Cal. 215 [ 4 Pac. (2d) 937 ].) The record here is voluminous and cannot be fully reviewed here.

Reavis v. Gardner

6 Cal. Unrep. 427 · California Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1900

It is true, the ultimate fact of ownership is not found, but successive conveyances from the source of title to the plaintiff are found, and this is sufficient in such cases as the present: Kidder v. … Stevens, 60 Cal. 414 ; McCarthy v. Brown, 113 Cal. 15 , 45 Pac. 14 . The plaintiff, whom we may suppose to be a person of full age] is the son of said Ann E. Reavis.

Rauer v. Lowe

107 Cal. 229 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1895

In Buckman v. … The case of Brown v. Jenks, 98 Cal. 10 , cited by appellant, is not in point.

Staples v. Connor

79 Cal. 14 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1889

(See Meeks v. Vassault, 3 Saw. 206 ; Meeks v. Olpherts, 100 U. S. 564 ; McLeran v. Benton, 73 Cal. 342, 343 .) … It is found that in 1866 there was a vacancy in the office of public administrator, and that the board of supervisors appointed Joseph Hewitt to fill the same, but that he “did not qualify as such public administrator, in

In Re Estate of Ballou

181 Cal. 61 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1919

(See 2 Woerner on American Law of Administration, star p. 1005; Brown v. Knapp, 79 N. Y. 136, 142 ; Needer v. Zimmer, 3 N. Y. Supp. 133 ; In Re Keech's Estate, 240 Pa. St. 491, [ 87 Atl. 623 ].)