Case law

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.

Estrada v. Alvarez

38 Cal. 2d 386 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1952

(Clanton v. Clanton (1942), 52 Cal.App.2d 550, 556 [ 126 P.2d 639 ], and King v. … Co. (1932), 121 Cal.App. 374, 377 [ 9 P.2d 264 ]; Schneider v. Henley (1923), 61 Cal.App. 758, 763 [ 215 P. 1036 ] ; Brown v. Domestic Utilities Mfg. Co. (1916), 172 Cal. 733, 737 [ 159 P. 163 ] ; Ferguson v.

Whitney v. Sherman

178 Cal. 435 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1918

To the same effect, see Prutsman v. Baker, 30 Wis. 650 -652, [ 11 Am. Rep. 592 ] ; Cook v. Brown, 34 N. H. 460. … Dec. 593 ]; Dreyfus v. Hirt, 82 Cal. 625 , [ 23 Pac. 193 ]; Scheerer v. Cuddy, 85 Cal. 272 , [ 24 Pac. 713 ] ; Beattie v. Crewdson, 124 Cal. 577 , [ 57 Pac. 463 ].)

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.

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 ].)

Webb v. Vercoe

201 Cal. 754 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1927

Such considerations constitute the foundation of almost every trust, and the trustee should be held to account as nearly as possible in the same spirit in which he originally contracted.’ ” In the ease of Brown v. … The rule is stated in Brown v. Spencer, 163 Cal. 592, 593 [ 126 Pac. 493 ], and many of our decisions in which may be found illustrations of the applications of the rule, are there cited.” *763 In the case of Parker v.

Townsel v. Superior Court

86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 602 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1999

(See Linhart v. … In People v.

County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · Jul 10, 2023

v. … Wolf (2004) 32 Cal.4th 453, 458 (Huskinson & Brown).)

California Manufacturers Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission

24 Cal. 3d 836 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1979

(Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 514 P.2d 1224 ]; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., supra, at p. 645 ; Johnstone v. … (Madrid v. Justice Court (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 819, 825 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 348 ]; Rich v. State Board of Optometry (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 591, 607 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 512 ].)

Rudel v. County of Los Angeles

118 Cal. 281 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1897

(Citing McCreary v. Marston, 56 Cal. 403 . See, also, Hall v. Arnott, 80 Cal. 348 ; Gregory v. Nelson, 41 Cal. 279 ; Burnett v. Stearns, 33 Cal. 469 .) Ortega v. … Ogburn v.

Fresno Etc. Co. v. Southern Pac. Etc. Co.

135 Cal. 202 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1901

In San Francisco v. … And in Wood v.

Evarts v. Johnston

34 Cal. 2d 6 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1949

Code, § 3391; Haddock v. Knapp, 171 Cal. 59, 62 [ 151 P. 1140 ]; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co., 163 Cal. 182, 196 [ 124 P. 817 ]; Quann v. Kraseman, 84 Cal.App.2d 550, 551 [ 191 P.2d 16 ]; Foley v. … Nicoll, 66 Cal.App.2d 67, 69 [ 151 P.2d 664 ]; Remmers v. Ciciliot, 59 Cal.App.2d 113, 116 [ 138 P.2d 306 ]; Page v. Brown, 122 Cal.App. 12, 19 [ 9 P.2d 895 ].)

San Diego Investment Co. v. Shaw

129 Cal. 273 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1900

In Diggins v. … Brown, 76 Cal. 322 , the same contention was made in regard to the language quoted from the act of' 1872, *276 and this court said: “There is nothing in the language of the provision to indicate that such was the meaning

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.

Pacific Coast Savings Society v. City & County of San Francisco

133 Cal. 14 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1901

Subsequently, the plaintiff applied to the board of equalization to reduce the assessment made by the assessor, by striking the said sum of sixty-five thousand dollars therefrom, upon the ground that it was not on the first … (Mackay v. San Francisco, 113 Cal. 392 .)

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.

Spieker v. Lash

102 Cal. 38 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1894

(Sperry v. Percival Milling Co., 81 Cal. 258 ; Pierce v. Guittard, 68 Cal. 68 ; 58 Am. Rep. 1 .) … (McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 251 ; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 542 . See, also, Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Baumbach, 32 Fed. Rep. 212; California Fig Syrup Co. v. Improved Fig Syrup Co., 51 Fed.

Sullivan v. Royer

72 Cal. 248 · California Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1887

(People v. Anderson, 44 Cal. 70 ; Proffatt on Jury Trials, sec. 253.) As we have seen, this was an action in equity. (People v. Moore, 29 Cal. 427 ; Courtwright v. B. R. & A. W. & M. Co., 30 Cal. 576, 577 .) … (Sweetzer v. Dobbins, 65 Cal. 529 .)

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.

Crouse v. Barrows

156 Cal. 154 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1909

(San Jose v. Auzerais, 106 Cal. 499 , [39 Pac. 859]; Schwiesau v. Mahon, 128 Cal. 114 , [ 60 Pac. 683 ]; Williamson v. Joyce, 137 Cal. 107 , [ 69 Pac. 854 ].) … This was the condition of the complaint in Pacific Paving Co. v. Bolton, 97 Cal. 8 , [ 31 Pac. 625 ].