Case law

Lolley v. Campbell

121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 571 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2002

Sess.) prepared for Governor Brown (July 3, 1980), p. 1.) … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Gassner v. Patterson

23 Cal. 299 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

(Chenyworth v. Daily, 7 Ind. 284 ; Divver v. McLaughlin, 2 Wend. 596 ; Clayborn v. Hill, 1 Wash. 177 ; Meyer v. Gorham, 5 Cal. 322 .) … (Smith v. Randall, 6 Cal. 50 ; Cole v. White, 24 Wend. 141 .) Besides, the plaintiff has not been injured in any way, by the inadequacy of price. It is the loss of the mortgagor, and not of the plaintiff.

Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control District

47 Cal. 3d 550 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1988

(Quoting Bacich v. Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal.2d 343 , 350 [ 144 P.2d 818 ]; see, e.g., Reardon v. San Francisco (1885) 66 Cal. 492 , 505 [ 6 P. 317 ].) As we subsequently explained in Holtz v. … State Reclamation Board, supra, 35 Cal.2d at p. 636 .)

People v. McCain

51 Cal. 360 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1876

In this respect the case is the same as San Francisco v. … Itwas held in Reis v.

Financial Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court

45 Cal. 2d 395 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1955

Brown, Attorney General, Everett W. Mattoon, Assistant Attorney General, and Lee B. Stanton, Deputy Attorney General, for Real Party in Interest. EDMONDS, J. G. … In Brock v.

Allen v. McKay & Co.

139 Cal. 94 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1903

(Allen v. McKay, 120 Cal. 332 .) … It has been held by this court that the assessment-roll, when completed and certified by the assessor to the board of super *101 visors, is the only evidence of his acts and intentions. {People v.

Greenberg v. Western Turf Assn.

140 Cal. 357 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1903

(Baylies v. Curry, 128 Ill. 287 ; People v. King, 110 N. Y. 418 ; 3 Messenger v. State, 25 Neb. 674 ; Joseph v. Bidwell, 28 La. Ann. 382 ; 4 Donnell v. State, 48 Miss. 661 ; 5 United States v. … (Barkly v. Copeland, 74 Cal. 1 ; 1 Brown v. Evans, 17 Fed. 912 ; Belknap v. Boston etc. Co., 49 N. H. 358.) These seem to be all the matters which in contemplation of a new trial are pertinent here to be considered.

Desmond v. Dunn

55 Cal. 242 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

Lim. 63; Commonwealth v. The Council of Montrose, 52 Pa. St. 391; Wise v. Button, 25 Wis. 109 .) To the foregoing views, one objection is raised, which is not wholly devoid of plausibility. … (Packer v. S. & E. R. Co. 19 Pa. St. 211.)

Lick v. Austin

43 Cal. 590 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1872

It was held in People v. … People v.

Conniff v. City of San Francisco

67 Cal. 45 · California Supreme Court · May 22, 1885

The grading of streets of the city of San Francisco can only be done under an order of the board of supervisors. … (See Baron v. Baltimore, 2 Am. Jur. 203 , cited, commented upon, and approved in Stetson v. Faxon, 19 Pick. 147 ; 31 Am. Dec. 123 ; Gardner v. Newburgh, 2 Johns. Ch. 162 ; 7 Am. Dec. 526 ; Phinizy v.

Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission

13 Cal. 3d 263 · California Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1975

(Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal.3d at pp. 256-257.) … (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal.3d at pp. 261-262.)

Griffin Development Co. v. City of Oxnard

39 Cal. 3d 256 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1985

See Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control Board (1984) 35 Cal.3d 858, 868 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 593 , 679 P.2d 27 ].) … Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477, 485 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ]. See, also, Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984) 37 Cal.3d 644, 676 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 682 , 693 P.2d 261 ].)

People ex rel. McDougall v. Bell

4 Cal. 178 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1854

(See Wilson v. Supervisors of Albany, 12 Johns. 414, 416 ; Commissioners of the Poor, etc., v. Lynch, 2 McCord, 170 .) In Hull v. … on a transient pauper; and it was shown in answer to the rule, that the Supervisors had acted on the subject and audited the bill, but at a very small amount; and the Court denied the application, on the ground that the Board

People v. Duroncelay

48 Cal. 2d 766 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1957

v. … (People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 648-649 [ 290 P.2d 531 ]; People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 655 [ 290 P.2d 535 ] ; People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 762 [ 290 P.2d 855 ].)

Price v. De Reyes

161 Cal. 484 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1911

Champlin, 59 Cal. 116 ; Johnson v. Brown, 63 Cal. 393 ; Truett v. Adams, 66 Cal. 223 , [ 5 Pac. 96 ]; White v. Spreckels, 75 Cal. 616 , [ 17 Pac. 715 ]; Burris v. Fitch, 76 Cal. 398 , [ 18 Pac. 864 ]; Helm v. … (Sneed v . Osborn, 25 Cal. 619; Young v. Blakeman, 153 Cal. 481 , [ 95 Pac. 888 ]; White v. Spreckels, 75 Cal. 616 , [ 17 Pac. 715 ].)

Vassault v. Edwards

43 Cal. 458 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1872

(See Wakefield v. Greenwood, 29 Cal. 599 ; and see cases collected in note to Sec. 505, Brown Stat. Fraud.) The Statute of Brands has not changed the rules of pleading. … (See Flight v. Bolland, 4 Russ. 298; Seaton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 265; Bowen v. Morris, 2 Taunton, 373; Ld. Ormond v. Anderson, 2 Ball & Beatty, 363; Palmer v. Scott, 1 Russ. & Mylne, 391; Martin v.

People v. Weiss

86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 337 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1999

Other officers who were in the driveway in front of the house observed several five-gallon plastic buckets painted with camouflage colors next to the driveway, a larger brown barrel wedged between trees with an irrigation … J., Mosk, L, Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., concurred. 1 This factual summary is drawn from the Court of Appeal’s summary.

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.)

Continental Building & Loan Ass'n v. Hutton

144 Cal. 609 · California Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1904

Proc., sec. 4; Corbett v. Chambers, 109 Cal. 184 .) … To be sure, the materials were to be delivered in the first instance on board the cars at Napa, where the respondents’ place of business was, but as Waggoner, the contractor, testifies, “The mill work was to be furnished

Locke v. Locke

153 Cal. 56 · California Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1908

her business in Colorado- *58 and came to California in October, 1905, that during the time since leaving Colorado she has been unable to support herself, but has been assisted by friends to the extent of being furnished board … (See Thompson v. Thompson, 121 Cal. 11 , [ 53 Pac. 403 ].)