Case law

Higgins v. City of San Diego

131 Cal. 294 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1901

Other cases dealing with this provision of the constitution are Shaw v. Statler, 74 Cal. 258 ; Schwartz v. Wilson, 75 Cal. 502 ; Smith v. Broderick, 107 Cal. 644 1 ; Weaver v. San Francisco, 111 Cal. 319 ; McBean v. … In Potter v.

Shanklin v. Gray

111 Cal. 88 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1896

In Eyre v. … That there can be but a single penalty for past delinquencies, see Loveland v.

Guttmann v. Scannell

7 Cal. 455 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

The Court below found the value of the goods to be one thousand six hundred and fifty dollars; that the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars, the amount received from the boarding-house, was liable for the husband’s debts … See McKune v. McGarvey, October Term, 1856. It is also contended that the act was designed to permit a married woman to invest only her separate property, in some business not unsuited to her sex.

King v. Meese

43 Cal. 3d 1217 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1987

in a region, preempting county regulation); State Board v. … California Board of Barber Examiners (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1014 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 368 , 54 A.L.R.3d 910 ] (same); Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v.

Prince v. City & County of San Francisco

48 Cal. 2d 472 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1957

In the case of First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. … (See Allied Architects’ Assn. v. Payne, 192 Cal. 431 [ 221 P. 209 , 30 A.L.R. 1029 ] ; Veterans’ Welfare Board v. Riley, 188 Cal. 607, 611 *475 [ 206 P. 631 ].) In the case of First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v.

Martin v. California Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n

18 Cal. 2d 478 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1941

Dist., 3 Cal. (2d) 409, 417 [ 45 Pac. (2d) 321 ]; Loew’s Inc. v. … Assn. v. Gallegos, 78 Fed. (2d) 972, 981; Savannah etc. L. & B. Co. v. Silverberg, 108 Ga. 281 [ 33 S. E. 908, 911 ]; Helvering v. Richmond F. & P. R. Co., 90 Fed. (2d) 971; In re National B., L. & Prov. Assn., 12 Del.

Rotea v. Izuel

14 Cal. 2d 605 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1939

The claim here involved was made by plaintiff against the estate of Antonio *607 Izuel, deceased, for services performed in furnishing room, board and nursing care to said Eugenia Izuel from 1916 until the time of her death … Plaintiff alleged that he furnished room, board and nursing care for said Eugenia Izuel for said period of approximately 16 years “at the special instance and request of said Antonio Izuel” and that the reasonable value of

Harnett v. Central Pacific Railroad

78 Cal. 31 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1888

On the contrary, the evidence established that the plaintiff, with his companions, contrary to the orders of the persons in charge of the switch-engine No. 44, got upon the foot-board in front of said engine, which was a … Justice McFarland in Nolly v.

Kingston Constructors, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

14 Cal. 4th 939 · California Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1997

v. … Kingston quotes our statement in Brown v. Pitchess, supra, 13 Cal.3d at page 521 : “The phrase ‘original jurisdiction’. . . does not mean exclusive jurisdiction.” That is true. But it is of no benefit to its position.

Payne v. English

101 Cal. 10 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1894

The following language used by this court in deciding the case of Oreña v. … This question having been decided against their contention, they, as members of the board of state harbor commissioners, are by the statute given no control over the strip. (Political Code, sec. 2524.)

In Re Polizzotto

188 Cal. 410 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1922

The petitioner is imprisoned in the county jail of Stanislaus County upon a charge of violating an ordinance adopted by the board of supervisors of said county on January 19, 1921, declaring it to be a mis *411 demeanor for … App. 229 [ 199 Pac. 1090 ]; Ex parte Crookshank, 269 Fed. 980 ; Woods v. City of Seattle, 270 Fed. 315 . [4] 3.

Ward v. Marshall

96 Cal. 155 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1892

(People v. Ward, 85 Cal. 585 .) On July 22, 1889, the board of supervisors of the county appointed one Parker to the office from which plaintiff had been removed by the judgment of the superior court. … (Dorsey v. Smith,, 28 Cal. 21 ; Burke v. Edgar, 67 Cal. 182 ; People v. Potter, 63 Cal. 127 ; Fitzsimmons v. City of Brooklyn, 102 N. Y. 536 ; 55 Am. Rep. 835 ; Andrews v. Portland, 79 Me. 484 ; 10 Am. St. Rep. 280 .)

People v. Johnsen

10 Cal. 5th 1116 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2021

(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 396 (Brown).) … (People v. Bunyard (2009) 45 Cal.4th 836, 860–861; see also Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 402; People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 1014 (O’Malley).)

Mayock v. Kerr

216 Cal. 171 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1932

(See Osborn v. Board of Supervisors, 27 Cal. App. 85 [ 148 Pac. 970 ]; Ley v. Dominguez, 212 Cal. 587 [ 299 Pac. 713 ].) … Petitioner also refers to and relies upon the minute order of this court of July 8, 1932, in the case of Burke v. Backs, L. A.

People v. Holmes

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 2004

(People v. … (In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 684 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 511 P.2d 1153 ].)

Green v. Ralee Engineering Co.

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 16 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1998

BROWN, J. I dissent. I “Because air safety ranks somewhere in pecking order between motherhood and the American flag, it would be easy to concur fully in the majority opinion.” (F.A.A. v. … Baxter, J., and Brown, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Coronado Beach Co. v. Pillsbury

172 Cal. 682 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1916

The Committee of Arbitration of the Massachusetts Industrial Accident Board passed upon a matter involving almost identically the same state of facts as those here considered. … The representative of the employee dissents.’ ” (Clark v.

Ex Parte Fedderwitz

6 Cal. Unrep. 562 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1900

In Stevenson v. Colgan, 91 Cal. 649 , 25 Am. St. Rep. 230 , 14 L. R. … The clerk of the council, board of trustees, or other governing body of such city, shall cause a certified copy of such minute order to be filed with the board of supervisors of the county wherein such city is situated. ’

Quinn v. Rosenfeld

15 Cal. 2d 486 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1940

(Brown v. Regan, 10 Cal. (2d) 519 [ 75 Pac. (2d) 1063 ].) By section 562 (a) of the Vehicle Code the plaintiff was required to yield the right of way to all vehicles on the roadway. … (Genola v. Barnett, 14 Cal. (2d) 217 [ 93 Pac. (2d) 109 ], and cases cited; see, also, Mitrovich v. Graves, 25 Cal. App. (2d) 649 [ 78 Pac. (2d) 227 ].) The case of Meincke v.

People v. Dunn

80 Cal. 211 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1889

Code, secs. 240, 256, 257; Gardner v. The Collector, 6 Wall. 499 ; Santa Clara Railroad Tax Case, 9 Saw. 226 , 227; Spangler v. Jacoby, 14 Ill. 298 ; Weill v. Kenfield, 54 Cal. 111 ; Oakland Paving Company v. … (Larrison v. Peoria etc. Railroad Co., 77 Ill. 11 ; Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 164; Minnesota v. City of Hastings, 24 Minn. 78 ; Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 476 ; Illinois v.