Case law

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.

Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp.

15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 793 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2004

(People v. … Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, § 44.20, p. 1486; Weil & Brown, supra, f 9:48, p. 9(l)-24.)

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.

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.

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 ].

Doran v. City & County of San Francisco

44 Cal. 2d 477 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1955

In Girdner v. … (Palmer v. Tschudy, supra, 191 Cal. 696, 700 ; Rodabaugh v. Tekus, supra, 39 Cal.2d 290, 293 ; also Girdner v. Union Oil Co., supra, 216 Cal. 197, 202 ; Daniels v.

People v. Bonillas

48 Cal. 3d 757 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1989

There was no Brown error. *792 8. … (People v. Brown (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1247, 1264, fn. 7 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 756 P.2d 204 ].)

In Re Burke

190 Cal. 326 · California Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1923

Co. v. … Linthicum v. Board of Commissioners, 175 Ind. 400, 403 [ 94 N. E. 716 ]; People v. Crossley, 261 Ill. 78, 83 [ 103 N. E. 537 ]; Evans v. Illinois Surety Co., 298 Ill. 101, 106 [ 131 N. E. 262 ] ; Hunt v.

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 ].)

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

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.

Eaton v. Metz

5 Cal. Unrep. 59 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1895

Rep. 310 , 26 Pac. 213 ; Wetherly v. Straus, 93 Cal. 284 , 28 Pac. 1045 ; Albertoli v. Branham, 80 Cal. 633 , 13 Am. St. Rep. 200 , 22 Pac. 404 . As was said in Mason v. … Each defense must be consistent with itself, but need not be con *63 sistent with the others: Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 671 ; Willson v. Cleaveland, 30 Cal. 192 ; Buhne v. Corbett, 43 Cal. 264 .

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.

O'Connell v. Dougherty

32 Cal. 458 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

(Seale v. Ford, 29 Cal. 106 .) … (Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 272 ; Clark v. Lockwood, 21 Cal. 222 ; Emeric v. Penniman, 26 Cal. 119 .) It follows that the plaintiff cannot maintain this action on his title derived from Victor Castro.

People v. Coleman

38 Cal. 3d 69 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1985

In Board of Education v. … Board of Trustees v. Porini (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 784 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 73 ], came to a different conclusion about the use of hearsay.