Case law

People ex rel. Sabichi v. Los Angeles Electric Railway Co.

91 Cal. 338 · California Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1891

(Ormsby v. Copper Min. Co., 65 Barb. 360 ; People v. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend, *341 351; Bear Camp River Co. v. Woadman, 2 Me. 404 ; Mickles v. Bank, 11 Paige, 118 ; Commonwealth v. Commercial Bank, 28 Pa. … Conceding that the board of supervisors could not grant a franchise and right of way to the defendant, on any other or different conditions than those prescribed by section 502 of the Civil Code, viz. : Work to construct

Miller v. Hart

11 Cal. 2d 739 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1938

In Brown v. … (Bennett v. Superior Court, supra; Central Bank of Oakland v. Proctor, supra.)

Young v. Matthew Turner Co.

168 Cal. 671 · California Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1914

(Brown v. Valley View Mining Co., 127 Cal. 632 , [ 60 Pac. 424 ].) Such a pleading leaves the former pleading intact. (Giddings v. 76 Land & Water Co., 109 Cal. 121 , [ 41 Pac. 788 ] ; California F. & F. Co. v. … (Stiles v. Cain, 134 Cal. 171 [ 66 Pac. 231 ]; Bruck v. Tucker, 42 Cal. 354 ; Lambert v. Haskell, 80 Cal. 613 , [ 22 Pac. 327 ].)

City of Long Beach v. Vickers

55 Cal. 2d 153 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1961

its land, the board directed respondent to execute the unit agreements and unit operating agreements. … Co. v. Hamilton, 161 Cal. 610, 617-620 [ 119 P. 1073 , 37 L.R.A. N.S. 686]; Boone v. Kingsbury, 206 Cal. 148, 184 [ 273 P. 797 ]; City of Long Beach v. Marshall, 11 Cal.2d 609, 621 [ 82 P.2d 362 ]; see also Mallon v.

Morris v. Courtney

120 Cal. 63 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1898

Prior to that time, to wit, on January 30,1892, he had, by a deed duly executed and recorded on February 5, 1892, conveyed to the board of supervisors of said county a strip thirty feet wide off the entire east and north … (Citing many cases, including Alvarez v. Brannan, supra. See, also, Groppengiesser v. Lake, 103 Cal. 37 ; Cabot v. Christie, 42 Vt. 121 ; 1 Am. Rep. 313 ; Haight v. Hayt, 19 N. Y. 464 ; Speed v.

McCann v. Jordan

218 Cal. 577 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1933

(McCann v. Jordan, 217 Cal. 506 [ 20 Pac. (2d) 47 ].) … (Brougher v. Board of Public Works, 205 Cal. 426 [ 271 Pac. 487 ]; Wheat v. Barrett, 210 Cal. 193 [ 290 Pac. 1033 ]; Brett v. Building Com. of Brookline, 250 Mass. 73 [ 145 N. E. 269 ].)

Poorman v. D. O. Mills & Co.

39 Cal. 345 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1870

Pryor, 27 Barb. 80 ; Banger v. Cary, 1 Met. 373 ; Seaver v. Lincoln, 21 Pick. 268 ; Parker v. Tuttle, 44 Maine, 467; Dennen v. Haskell, 45 Id. 430; Carlton v. Bailey, 7 Foster, 234 ; Emerson v. Crocker, 5 N. … H. 162; Culver v. Parish, 21 Conn. 408 ; Martin v. Winslow, 2 Mason U. S. C. C. 242; Carll v. Brown, 2 Mich. 401 ; Atlantic De L. Co. v. Tredick, 5 R. I. 179; Wethey v.

Blanchard v. Pacific Rolling-Mill Co.

4 Cal. Unrep. 619 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1894

The ship arrived in due course, and defendant was notified that the iron was on board, ready to be discharged, but, owing to the fact that defendant’s wharf was occupied by other vessels, Macondray & Co. were unable to deliver … The case of Dibble v. Corbett, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 202, seems to be directly in point as to all the questions here involved.

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.

Lusardi Construction Co. v. Aubry

1 Cal. 4th 976 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1992

Co. v. … (See Lerner v. Los Angeles City Board of Education (1963) 59 Cal.2d 382, 397-399 [ 29 Cal. Rptr. 657 , 380 P.2d 97 ], and cases cited at fn. 10.)

Castro v. Adams

153 Cal. 382 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1908

This proposition was settled by the decision in the case of Adams v. … The petition to the land commissioners and the decree of that board were introduced to show a confirmation of the title under the Mexican grant and not to establish possession.

City of Long Beach v. Mansell

3 Cal. 3d 462 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1970

(See Grants Pass Land & Water Co. v. Brown (1914) 168 Cal. 456, 462 [ 143 P. 754 ]; Frericks v. Sorensen (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 759 [ 248 P.2d 949 ]; cf. Stamford v. … State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 643 [ 234 P.2d 981 ]; McNeil v.

In Re Shapiro

14 Cal. 3d 711 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1975

(Sutherland v. District of Columbia Board of Parole (1973) 366 F.Supp. 270 ; Jones v. Johnston (1974) 368 F.Supp. 571 ; Fitzgerald v. Sigler (1974) 372 F.Supp. 889 ; contra, Thomas v. … United States Board of Parole (D.Kan. 1973) 354 F.Supp. 273 .)

Bergson v. Builders Insurance Co.

38 Cal. 541 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

(Lynch v. Dalzell, 3 Brown’s Part. Cases, 497.) In Wilson v. … In Bibend v. Liverpool Ins.

People Ex Rel. Gallo v. Acuna

14 Cal. 4th 1090 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1997

Opinion BROWN, J. … Board of Supervisors, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 286 .)

Costa v. Neves

12 Cal. 2d 121 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1938

Jur., p. 976; Brown v. Campbell, 100 Cal. 635 [ 35 Pac. 433 , 38 Am. St. Rep. 314 ] ; Sewell v. Price, 164 Cal. 265 [ 128 Pac. 407 ].) … “See, also Marsh v. Smith, 46 Cal.

Powers v. Hitchcock

129 Cal. 325 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1900

(Austin v. Dick, 100 Cal. 201 ; Carlson v. Burt, 111 Cal. 129 .) … Proc., sec. 1963, subd. 15; Weaver v. Fairchild, 50 Cal. 360 .)

Sierra Club v. City of Hayward

28 Cal. 3d 840 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1981

(a); see, e.g., Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 637 [ 234 P.2d 981 ]; Temescal Water Co. v. Dept. Public Works (1955) 44 Cal.2d 90, 101 [ 280 P.2d 1 ]; Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. … (See, e.g., Savelli v. Board of Medical Examiners (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 124, 131-132 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 171 ].)

Donovan v. Ferris

128 Cal. 48 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1900

In Congrave v. Southern Pac. R. R. … Defendant obtained permission of the board of supervisors, after filing a bond and complying with the regulations of the board, "to use two thousand pounds of powder in the blasts to be set off on the property northwest of

In Re Wallace

24 Cal. 2d 933 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1944

Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 [ 55 S.Ct. 340 , 79 L.Ed. 791 , 98 A.L.R. 406 ]), or using a confession with the knowledge that it was obtained by force or fraud (Brown v. … Impartiality in a judge or juror is indispensable to a fair trial (Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 530 [ 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 ]; Baker v.