Case law

City & County of San Francisco v. Luning

73 Cal. 610 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1887

other statutory provisions about actions for taxes, and in none of them is it indicated that the action is deemed *613 to be an action upon a judgment, although, in one particular instance, only, it is provided that the board … The point upon which this case turns was elaborately argued and considered in State of Nevada v. Y. I. S. M. Co., 14 Nev. 220 . The provisions of the statute of limitations were the same there as here.

Timm Aircraft Corp. v. Byram

34 Cal. 2d 632 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1950

Board of Supervisors, 31 Cal.2d 657 [ 192 P.2d 22 ]; Kaiser Co. v. Reid, 30 Cal.2d 610, 625 [ 184 P.2d 879 ].) … The board of supervisors is authorized to allow such a claim when the facts justify that action. The other procedure (Rev. & Tax.

McWilliams v. City of Long Beach

56 Cal. 4th 613 · California Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2013

Lohman v. Brown (Mo.Ct.App. 1997) 936 S.W.2d 607, 610), Nebraska (Boersma v. Karnes (Neb. 1988) 417 N.W.2d 341, 344), Pennsylvania (Dunn v. … Board of Property Assessment (Pa.Commw.Ct. 2005) 877 A.2d 504, 512), South Dakota (Pourier v. S.D. Dept. of Rev. & Reg. (S.D. 2010) 778 N.W.2d 602, 605-606), and Tennessee (Wicker v.

Parris v. Zolin

12 Cal. 4th 839 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1996

It relies on statements made in other contexts by the Court of Appeal in Monaghan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1621, 1626 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 ], and Nick v. … In Monaghan v.

Irilarry v. City of San Diego

186 Cal. 535 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1921

In the case of Ruperich v. … (Skelly v. Westminster School Dist., 103 Cal. 652 , [ 37 Pac. 643 ]; Witter v. Mission School Dist., 121 Cal. 350 , [ 66 Am. St. Rep. 33 , 53 Pac. 905 ]; Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110 , [ 23 Am. St.

Ballou v. Andrews Banking Co.

128 Cal. 562 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1900

(Washburn v. Huntington, 78 Cal. 575 ; Matthews v. Chaboya, 111 Cal. 437 .) The transfer, not having been made in the usual and ordinary course of business, was prima fade evidence of fraud. … (Hobart v. Tyrrell, 68 Cal. 12 ; Brown v. Bank of Napa, 77 Cal. 544 .) The defendant must be held under the circumstances to have been aware of the intent of Greenberg Brothers in malting the transfer.

Ogden v. Byington

198 Cal. 151 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1926

v. … In the case of Thomas v.

Ross v. City of Long Beach

24 Cal. 2d 258 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1944

State Board of Equalization, 214 Cal. 288 [5 P.2d 424]; Graciosa Oil Co. v. Santa Barbara County, 155 Cal. 140 [ 99 P. 483 , 20 L.R.A.N.S. 211 ]; Hammond Lumber Co. v. … City of Muscatine, 59 Iowa 404 [ 13 N.W. 409 ]; see Carteret Academy v. State Board, 102 N.J.L. 525 [ 133 A. 886 ].)

Alaska Salmon Co. v. Standard Box Co.

158 Cal. 567 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1910

(Nunez v. Morgan, 77 Cal. 427 , [ 19 P. 753 ]; Bradford Investment Co. v. Joost, 117 Cal. 204 , [ 48 P. 1083 ].) If the defendant relies upon the statute of frauds against such a complaint he must plead it. (Broder v. … (Barron v. Frink, 30 Cal. 486 ; *Page 574 McGehee v. Hill, 4 Porter (Ala.) 170, [ 29 Am. Dec. 277 ]; Grandy v. McCleese, 2 Jones (47 N.C.) 142.)

Gray v. Bekins

186 Cal. 389 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1921

(Cox v. McLaughlin, 76 Cal. 70 , [ 9 Am. St. Rep. 164 , 18 Pac. 100 ]; Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 696 , [ 109 Pac. 29 ]; Connell v. … (Adams v. Burbank, 103 Cal. 646, 650 , [ 37 Pac. 640 ]; Keeling v. Schastey, 18 Cal. App. 764, 768 , [ 124 Pac. 445 ]; Tubbs v. Delillo, 19 Cal.

People v. M.M.

54 Cal. 4th 530 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2012

(People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1008; see also Catlin v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 300, 304; People v. Canty (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1266, 1277.) … (Catlin v. Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 304; People v. Canty, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1277; People v. Woodhead, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1008.)

People v. Perez

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2005

BROWN, J., Concurring.—I agree with parts I and II of the majority opinion, and part HI to the extent it concludes that the jury was presented with a legally inadequate theory. … In Griffin v.

Baker v. Workers' Comp. App. Bd.

California Supreme Court · Oct 19, 2011

Administrator, ) Etc., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) S179194 v. … ) ) Ct.App. 6 H034040 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ) APPEALS BOARD and X.S., ) )

Graham v. Kingwell

218 Cal. 658 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1933

Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 Pac. 381, 383 , 38 A. L. R. 1479].) … (Hornblower v. Masonic Cem.

Lynch v. McDonald

155 Cal. 704 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1909

That was a matter to be determined by parol testimony *707 (Southern Pacific Co. v. Von Schmidt Dredge Co., 118 Cal. 371 , [ 50 Pac. 650 ].) … (See 2 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 902; Felton v. Le Breton, 92 Cal. 469 , [ 28 Pac. 490 ], Cox v. Delmas, 99 Cal. 104 , [ 33 Pac. 836 ].) It follows that the judgment must be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Burns v. Sennett

5 Cal. Unrep. 370 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1896

Upon the former appeal in this case (Burns v. … explanations of the different witnesses, but the following brief quotation from the testimony of plaintiff serves as a fair illustration of all: “The foreman of the stevedore firm hires a gang of men, and takes them on board

Coughlin v. Great Western Power Co.

183 Cal. 548 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1920

The general rule as to when a court will take judicial notice is stated in Dunphy v. St. Joseph Stockyards Co., 118 Mo. App. 506, 523 , [ 95 S. … (See, also, Brown v. Consol. Light etc. Co., 137 Mo. App. 718 , [ 109 S. W. 1032 ]; Campbell v. United Ry., 243 Mo. 141 , [ 147 S. W. 788 ].)

Downs v. Kroeger

200 Cal. 743 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1927

The ease of Trustees, etc., v. … The case of Miles v. Clark, 44 Cal.

Cornette v. Department of Transportation

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2001

*66 Opinion BROWN, J. … Brown, Jr., re Assem. Bill No. 893, supra, at p. 1.)

Manning's, Inc. v. Burkett

45 Cal. 2d 43 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1955

An appeal from disallowance of the protest was taken to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and was denied. … As a result of the judgment affirmed in Manning’s, Inc. v.