Case law

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 .)

Willis v. Wozencraft

22 Cal. 607 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

Co. v. Farr, 4 Watts & Sergeant, 374; Willing v. Brown, 7 S. & R., 467; Thomas v. Wright, 9 Id. 91) even against the holder of the legal title. (Presbyterian Congregation v. Johnson, 1 Watts & Serg. 56 .) … (Wykoff v. Wykoff, 8 Watts & Serg. 481 ; Ives v. Cress, 5 Barr. 188; Hull v. Vaughn, 6 Price’s Ex. 157.)

Burce v. Jack

135 Cal. 535 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1902

The petitioner presented his claim for services rendered in 1899 as justice of the peace, and it was allowed by the board of supervisors for seven dollars in each of four criminal cases, or an aggregate of twenty-eight dollars … (Dwyer v. Parker, 115 Cal. 544 ; Kiernan v. Swan, 131 Cal. 410 .)

Walls v. Preston

25 Cal. 59 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

(Rice v. Gashire, 13 Cal. 53 ; Brown v. Tolles, 7 Cal. 399 .) … In Hunt v.

McGarrahan v. New Idria Mining Co.

49 Cal. 331 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

The patent is evidence of the series of proceedings recited in it; and as the deed of the United States took effect by relation as of the date of the presentation of the petition for confirmation of the grant to the Board … (Gee v. Moore, 14 Cal. 472 ; Kimball v. Semple, 25 Cal. 440 ; Morrison v. Wilson, 30 Cal. 344 .)

Emeric v. Gilman

10 Cal. 404 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1858

In Russell v. … (Act to create a Board of Supervisors, § 24; Practice Act, as amended, § 219 ; Gilman v. Contra Costa County, 8 Cal., 52 ; Wilson v. Commissioners of Huntington, 7 Seargt. and Rawle, 199.) Judgment affirmed.

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 .)

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.

Humbert v. Dunn

84 Cal. 57 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1890

virtue of his appointment, qualification, and acts as a member of said commission, there is due to him as salary for the month of November, 1889, the sum of two hundred dollars; that his claim was duly presented to the state board … (Proll v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 220 .) In Ristine v.

Fraser v. Freelon

53 Cal. 644 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1879

It *647 was held in People v. County Judge, 40 Cal. 479 , that the People were not interested in the action, and were improperly made parties thereto. … affirms by necessary implication the existence of the Court as a judicial tribunal; and in fact the writ will not issue unless it be shown that the proceedings which are sought to be reviewed were had before a tribunal, board

Dankert v. Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District

211 Cal. 87 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1930

(Henderson v. Oroville-Wyandotte Irr. Dist., 207 Cal. 215 [ 277 Pac. 487 ].) … (Henderson v. Oroville-Wyandotte Irr. Dist., 207 Cal. 215 *91 [ 277 Pac. 487 ].) Said action was thereafter tried in said Superior Court of the County of Butte and judgment went for plaintiff.

Forni v. Yoell

99 Cal. 173 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1893

(Bonds v. Hickman, 29 Cal. 461 ; Carey v. Brown, 58 Cal. 185 .) The motion to dismiss for this cause should not prevail. There is another and a fatal objection to the appeal from the order denying a new trial. … Ass’n v. Porter, 58 Cal. 81 ; Barron v. Deleval, 58 Cal. 95 ; Kelleher v. Creciat, 89 Cal. 38 ; Wall v. Heald, 95 Cal. 364 ; Waddingham v. Tubbs, 95 Cal. 249 ; Dow v. Ross, 90 Cal. 562 ; Gray v.

People v. Ault

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 302 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2004

In People v. … County of Orange (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 944, 955 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 176 ] (Andrews) [juror misconduct]; People v. Brown (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 476, 481-482 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 217 ] (Brown) [juror misconduct]; Clemens v.

Alta Planing Mill Co. v. Garland

167 Cal. 179 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1914

(Aston v. Nolan, 63 Cal. 271 ; Conboy v. Dickinson, 92 Cal. 604 , [ 28 Pac. 809 ]; Sullivan v. Zeiner, *183 98 Cal. 349 , [20 L. R. A. 730, 30 Pac. 209 ]; Nippert v. Warneke, 128 Cal. 503 , [ 61 Pac. 96, 270 ].) … (Brown v. Crown Gold Milling Co., 150 Cal. 382 , [ 89 Pac. 86 ].)

Seymour v. McAvoy

121 Cal. 438 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1898

Agency v. Lee, 72 Md. 161 ; Wallace v. Campbell, 53 Tex. 229 ; Wales v. Bowdish, 61 Vt. 23 . … (Baker v. Brown, 146 Mass. 369 ; Pope v. Elliott, 8 B. Mon. 56 ; Roberts v. Stevens, supra; Wales v.

Roseman v. Canovan

43 Cal. 110 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1872

While it was lying on board the steamer at Stockton, the plaintiff, Roseman, and the defendant, Canovan, went to examine it, with a view to its purchase by the former. … The rule which would rather seem applicable to such a case was stated by Lord Brougham in Atwood v.

McAneny v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.

150 Cal. 6 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1906

Painter, 98 Cal. 626 , [ 33 Pac. 483 ]; Born v. Horstmann, 80 Cal. 452 ; Baldwin v. Superior Court, 125 Cal. 584 , [ 58 Pac. 185 ] ; Anderson v. Anderson, 123 Cal. 445 , [ 56 Pac. 61 ]; Brown v. … Co. v.

Watterson v. Saldunbehere

101 Cal. 107 · California Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1894

Whitesides, 15 Cal. 35 ; The Nevada Water Co. v. Powell, 34 Cal. 109 ; Higgins v. Barker, 42 Cal. 233 ; Junkans v. Bergin, 67 Cal. 267 ; Osgood v. Water & M. Co., 56 Cal. 571 ; Brown etc. v. … (Hines v. Johnson, 61 Cal. 259 ; Bird v. Lisbros, 9 Cal. 1 ; Niagara Con. G. M. Co. v. Bunker H. M. Co., 8 P. L. J. 1078; Hubbard v. Barry, 21 Cal. 320 ; Richardson v. McNulty, 24 Cal. 342 ; Carleton v.

Hall v. Hall

174 Cal. 718 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1917

(Leavell v. Leavell, 122 Mo. App. 654 , [ 99 S. W. 460 ]; Reed v. Reed, 6 Ind. App. 317 , [ 51 Am. St. Rep. 310 , 33 N. E. 638 ].) Quite like the present case in its facts is that of Busenbark v. … W. 188 ] ; Brown v. Brown, 124 N. C. 19 , [ 70 Am. St. Rep. 574 , 32 S. E. 320 ] ; Rice v. Rice, 104 Mich. 371 , [ 62 N. W. 836 ]; Pollock v. Pollock, 9 Mise. Rep. 82, [ 20 N. Y. Supp. 37 ] ; Fronk v. Fronk, 159 Mo.

Vargas v. City of Salinas

46 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Apr 20, 2009

In Stanson v. … Funds v.