Case law

Wells Fargo & Co. v. City & County of San Francisco

25 Cal. 2d 37 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1944

Montgomery, 124 Cal. 134 [ 56 P. 797 ] ; Wylie v. Sierra Gold Co., 120 Cal. 485 [ 52 P. 809 ] ; Mott v. Foster, 45 Cal. 72 ; Board of Commissioners v. … (Board of Commissioners v. Younger, supra; Crescent Canal Co. v. Montgomery, supra.)

Stitt v. State Bar

21 Cal. 3d 616 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1978

(See Gibson v. … The dictum to the contrary in Schullman v. State Bar (1973) 10 Cal.3d 526, 536 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 516 P.2d 865 ], footnote 4, is disapproved.

People v. Kelly

1 Cal. 4th 495 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1992

He relies primarily on language in People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], reversed on related grounds sub nomine California v. … (People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 117 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 276 , 806 P.2d 1311 ]; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ].)

Nickley v. Stearns Ranchos Co.

126 Cal. 150 · California Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1899

We are not unmindful that this statute was attacked in Holley v. … (In re Irrigation Dist., 117 Cal. 382 ; City Council v. Fowler, 48 S. C. 8.) The judgment is affirmed. Temple, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

People v. Lamson

1 Cal. 2d 648 · California Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1934

Brown. Later the undertaker arrived, and a little later Dr. … This rule is elementary and is aptly restated in the case of People v.

England v. Hospital of the Good Samaritan

14 Cal. 2d 791 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1939

(Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436 [ 32 S.Ct. 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 ]; Seagraves v. Wallace, 69 Fed.2d 163; McGovern v. … The board of directors consists of the bishop of the diocese, the rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church and certain parishioners of the diocese.

Wood v. Blaney

107 Cal. 291 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1895

(Pickard v. Sears, 6 Ad. & E. 469; Stephens v. Baird, 9 Cow. 274 ; Welland Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 480 ; 24 Am. Dec. 51 ; Dezell v. Odell, 3 Hill, 216 ; 38 Am. Dec. 628 ; Dresbach v. … (Bogart v. Crosby, 80 Cal. 195 , and cases there cited.) In Phelps v.

Spangler v. City of San Francisco

84 Cal. 12 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1890

The rule is so laid down in Damour v. Lyons City, 44 Iowa, 282 ; approved and followed in Powers v. City of Council Bluffs, 50 Iowa, 201, 202 . (See Mayor of New York v. Bailey, 2 Denio, 433 .) … It was not requisite to present the claim sued on herein to the board of supervisors of the city and county before instituting suit upon it, (Bloom v. San Francisco, 64 Cal. 503 ; Lehn v. San Francisco, 66 Cal. 76 .)

In Re Moser

6 Cal. 4th 342 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1993

(See Santobello v. … (See Carter v.

Knox v. City of Orland

4 Cal. 4th 132 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1992

State Board of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 231 [ 149 Cal. … If the language is clear, courts should construe a statute according to the usual and ordinary meaning of the words, unless to do so would produce absurd results ( Brown v.

Gutierrez v. Brinkerhoff

2 Cal. Unrep. 232 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1883

Confirmation of his claim to the extent of three square leagues of land was made by the board. … Williams, 26 Cal. 309 ; Gregory v. Haworth, 25 Cal. 653 ; Davis v. Mitchell, 34 Cal. 90 . Order affirmed. We concur: Sharpstein, J.; Myriek, J.

French v. French

17 Cal. 2d 775 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1941

referred to as “retainer pay” (39 Stats, at Large, chap. 417, p. 590), and has been said to be compensation “for the obligation on the part of such members to serve in the Navy in time of war or national emergency” (Sawyer v. … The eases of Crossan v. Crossan, 35 Cal. App. (2d) 39 [ 94 Pac. (2d) 609 ], and Dryden v. Board of Pension Commrs., 6 Cal. (2d) 575 [ 59 Pac. (2d) 104 ], are therefore not in point.

Los Angeles County v. Kirk

148 Cal. 385 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1905

Section 1617 of'the Political Code provides that “The powers and duties of trustees of school districts, and of boards of education in cities, are as follows: . . . Ninth. … The kindergarten system had been adopted by the city board of education as a special study to be taught in the public schools of said city.

In Re Head

42 Cal. 3d 223 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1986

Board of Medical Examiners [(1974)] 11 Cal.3d 1, 27 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ]).) … In Olney v.

People v. Selma Irrigation District

98 Cal. 206 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1893

(Turlock Irrigation District v. Williams, 76 Cal. 360 ; Central Irrigation District v. De Lappe, 79 Cal. 351 ; Crall v. Poso Irrigation District, 87 Cal. 140 ; People v. … See also upon this point Welch v. St. Genevieve, 1 Dillon Cir. Ct. 130.)

People v. Redd

48 Cal. 4th 691 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 2010

Defendant then ran down a dead-end alley, and a brown vehicle drove out of the alley. … On June 1, 1994, the Board of Prison Terms issued a warrant for defendant’s arrest.

Wolf v. Aetna Indem. Co. of Hartford

163 Cal. 597 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1912

Co. v. … O’Connor v.

Ex Parte Lorenzen

128 Cal. 431 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1900

The Indiana ease cited in the opinion as to the selling of liquor is opposed to the later case of Commonwealth v. … I fully indorse the doctrine of United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482 , as to the stop *443 page of the United States mails.

Guardianship of Leach

30 Cal. 2d 297 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1947

While others served for various periods on the board, Hornaday at all times exercised complete control over the several boards and over the policies of the company. … Proc., § 1911; Lang v. Lang, 182 Cal. 765, 768 [ 190 P. 181 ]; Hartfield v. Howard, 180 Cal. 376, 379 [ 181 P. 385 ]; Wardlow v. Middleton, 156 Cal. 585, 586-7 [ 105 P. 738 ]; Bank of Visalia v.

Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego

181 Cal. 696 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1919

that the basis of that decision was the conclusion that the Consolidation Act (secs. 24, 82, 83, 84, 85, Stats. 1856, pp. 169, 170; see, also, Stats. 1858, p. 235) did not require the presentation before judgment to the board … (See, also, Bank of California v. Shaber, 55 Cal. 322, 325 .)