Case law

Rico v. Spence

21 Cal. 504 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

complaint sets forth that a grant of the premises was issued in 1822 to Jose Santiago Estrada, through whom the plaintiffs trace their title; that the defendant David Spence presented a claim for the same premises to the Board … (Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 269 .) Independent of these views, there is another consideration which concludes the case. The plaintiffs do not show the possession of any equities which can control the legal title.

Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court

3 Cal. 4th 181 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1992

The trial court relied on Bommareddy v. … The Brown-Lockyer Civil Liabilities Reform Act In 1987, the Legislature enacted the Brown-Lockyer Civil Liability Reform Act (the Act). (Stats. 1987, ch. 1498, §§ 1-7, pp. 5777-5782.)

Whitcomb Hotel, Inc. v. California Employment Commission

24 Cal. 2d 753 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1944

Superior Court, 17 Cal.2d 707, 712 [ 112 P. 2d 10 ]; Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners, 21 Cal.2d 399, 402 [ 132 P.2d 804 ].) … Board of Administration, 34 Cal.App.2d 514, 521 [ 93 P.2d 1046 , 94 A.L.R. 610 ].)

Lebrun v. Richards

210 Cal. 308 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1930

App. 214 [ 187 Pac. 69, 70 ]; Board of Trustees v. Rodley, 38 Cal. App. 563 [ 177 Pac. 175, 176 ]; Ogburn v. Conner, 46 Cal. 347 [ 13 Am. Rep. 213 ].) In Heier v. … See, also, Board of Trustees v. Rodley, supra, and Rudel v.

Crane v. Crane

121 Cal. 99 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1898

(Huart v. Goyeneche, 56 Cal. 429 ; Johnson v. Sweeney, 95 Cal. 304 .) … Defendant’s conduct in presenting an answer signed by himself, personally was irregular, the attorneys by whom he had previously appeared not having been displaced in any manner (Board of Commrs. v.

Merrill v. Merrill

103 Cal. 287 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1894

For the proposition that it is a failure of consideration she relies upon the case of Glassell v. Coleman, 94 Cal. 261 . … Phelps v. Brown, 95 Cal. 572 , was a suit against a broker who held money deposited by a vendee as a forfeit. It was held that, the parties having rescinded the contract, the broker could not hold the money.

Ex parte Spencer

83 Cal. 460 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1890

The case of Eidenmuller v. Eidenmuller was based upon statutes entirely different from the provisions of our code. … In this state divorce is absolute; there is no such thing as divorce from bed and board under the law as it now exists. When • a marriage is dissolved, each party is relieved from all the obligations of the bond.

City of Los Angeles v. Western Union Oil Co.

161 Cal. 204 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1911

In Crocker v. … Co. v. Dalton, 119 Cal. 604 , [ 51 Pac. 1072 ]; Whatcom County v. Land Co., 7 Wash. 101 , [ 34 Pac. 563 ]; Arosin v. *207 Mortgage Co., 80 Minn. 277 , [ 83 N. W. 339 ]; Southern Oregon Co. v.

Partee v. San Diego Chargers Football Co.

34 Cal. 3d 378 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1983

(Younger v. Jensen, supra, 26 Cal. 3d 397, 405 ; citing Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters, supra, 29 Cal.2d 34 ; R. E. Spriggs v. Coors Co., supra, 37 Cal.App.3d 653 .) … Brown (1943) 317 U.S. 341 [ 87 L.Ed. 315 , 63 S.Ct. 307 ].)

Eshleman v. Henrietta Vineyard Co.

102 Cal. 199 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1894

In Eshleman, appellant, v. Henrietta Vineyard Company, respondent, Ho. 18018, this day filed, M. D. … In addition to the facts stated in Eshleman v.

People ex rel. Barry v. Gray

23 Cal. 125 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

(People v. El Dorado Co., 11 Cal. 170 ; Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 Id. 275 ; Martin v. San Francisco, Id. 285 ; Dana v. San Francisco, 19 Id. 486 ; Keller v. Hicks, 22 Id. 457.) … In Martin v.

People v. Williams

28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 29 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 2005

(People v. … Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied June 22, 2005. Baxter, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Himmelmann v. Haskell

46 Cal. 66 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

Upon the authority of Dyer v. North, 44 Cal. 157 , we hold this allegation to be sufficient. … The question as to the evidence which will be required to sustain the allegation—whether it must be shown that the Board ordered the award to be published—is not involved in this point.

Zellerbach v. Allenberg

99 Cal. 57 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1893

Co. v. Park, 14 Blatchf. 412 ; Beaver v. Taylor, 1 Wall. 642 ; Lund v. Tyngsborough, 9 Cush. 41 ; Allens. Duncan, 11 Pick. 308 .) … (Gordon v. Searing, 8 Cal. 49 ; Binney v. Russell, 109 Mass. 55 ; Manning v. Maroney, 87 Ala. 567 ; 13 Am. St. Rep. 67 ; Burton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 134 .)

City of Napa v. Howland

87 Cal. 84 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1890

His claim was confirmed by the board of land' commissioners in April, 1854, and a patent was issued to him in 1866. His newly acquired estate “feeds the estoppel.” … (State v. Graham, 15 Rich. 310 .)

Schwab v. Richardson

188 Cal. 27 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1922

The state board of equalization assessed the franchise of the company, or its “corporate excess” (Miller & Lux, Incorporated v. … Richardson, 182 Cal. 115 [ 187 Pac. 411 ]), at eight hundred thousand dollars and apportioned one hundred and twenty thousand dollars, or fifteen per cent thereof, to California as representing, in the judgment of the board

Vejar v. Mound City Land & Water Ass'n

97 Cal. 659 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1893

In their opinion in Dalton v. United States, the board of land commissioners state that the claimant has presented two grants: 1. One in which the property granted is designated by the name of San José; 2. … The board of land commissioners, in Dalton v.

In Re Schmolke

199 Cal. 42 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1926

(Hewitt v. Board of Medical Examiners, 148 Cal. 590 [ 113 Am. St. Rep. 315 , 7 Ann. Cas. 750, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 896, 84 Pac. 39 ].) … Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 640 [ 56 L. Ed. 1236 , 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 702, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes]; 31 Cyc. 999).

People v. Rathert

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 779 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2000

*212 BROWN, J., Concurring. … Tribune Publishing Co. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 536, 551 [ 343 P.2d 36 ]; Brown v. State Department of Health (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 548, 556 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 344 ] [in the context of Bus. & Prof.

Harris v. Superior Court

19 Cal. 3d 786 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1977

(People v. Surplice (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 784, 791 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 826 ]; see also People v. … It’s one where I have the obligation under People v. Brown [(1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 825 ( 102 Cal.Rptr. 518 )] and People v.