Case law

McDonnell v. Gillon

134 Cal. 329 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1901

The resolution is ,the initial step, and by it alone the board acquired jurisdiction to subsequently order the work done. (Schwiesau v. Mahon, 128 Cal. 114 ; citing Bolton v. Gilleran, 105 Cal. 244 . 1 See also Fay v. … It was held in Fay v.

Sunset Lumber Co. v. Bachelder

167 Cal. 512 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1914

(Robison v. Mitchell, 159 Cal. 588 , [ 114 Pac. 984 ].) … (Vermont Marble Co. v. Black, 123 Cal. 23 , [ 55 Pac. 599 ]; Kenney v. Parke, 120 Cal. 24 , [ 52 Pac. 40 ] ; Warner Bros. Co. v. Freud, 131 Cal. 639 , [ 82 Am. St. Rep. 400 , 63 Pac. 1017 ].)

Los Angeles Cemetery Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles

103 Cal. 461 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1894

(Wood on Nuisances, 3d ed., 415, citing *466 Eulrich v. Richter, 37 Wis. 226 ; Barnes v. Sahron, 10 Nev. 217 ; Shields v. Arndt, 4 N. J. Eq. 234, and many other cases are to like effect.) … Rep. 171 ; Cibbs v. Williams, 25 Kan. 210 ; 37 Am. Rep. 241 ; Palmer v. Waddell, 22 Kan. 352 .)

H. & J. Mabury Co. v. Bryant

9 Cal. 2d 586 · California Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1937

(Mabury v. Bryant, 8 Cal. (2d) 704 [ 68 Pac. (2d) 359 ].) … (Stockton Sav. & Loan Soc. v. Harrold, 127 Cal. 612 [ 60 Pac. (2d) 165 ]; Brown v. Luddy, 121 Cal. App. 494 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 326 ]; 9 Cal. Jur. Supp., pp. 698, 699; Hough v. Wright, 127 Cal. App. 689 [ 16 Pac. (2d) 301 ].)

Mills v. Barney

22 Cal. 240 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

(See, also, Dick v. Leverich, 11 Louis. 576; Talbot v. Bank of Rochester, 1 Hill, 295 ; Hartsman v. Henshaw, 11 How. 183 ; Harris v. Bradley, 7 Yerg. 310 ; Olivier v. Andy, 7 Louis. 496; Herrick v. … It seems to have been held that in actions like these against the indorser of a note or bill, the indorser is liable for such costs (Scott v. McLellan, 2 Green. 199; Hubbly v. Brown, 16 John. 70 ; Jones v.

Chamberlain v. Southern California Edison Co.

167 Cal. 500 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1914

W. 1016 ] ; Jones v. Hoge, 47 Wash. 664 , [ 125 Am. St. Rep. 915 , 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 216, 92 Pac. 433 ] ; Daily v. Maxwell, 152 Mo. App. 424 , [ 133 S. W. 351 ]; Doran v. Thomsen, 74 N. J. … The case of Brown v. Jarvis Engineering Co., 166 Mass. 76 , [ 55 Am. St. Rep. 382 , 32 L. R. A. 605, 43 N. E. 1118 ], was also very different from the one at bar.

People v. Steele

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 432 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 2002

There is a reasonable probability (People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 446-447 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ]; People v. … Brown, J., did not participate therein. Kennard, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

In Re Sakarias

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 265 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2005

For a period in 1987 to 1988, Waidla lived in the Piirisilds’ guest house, performing remodeling work and other chores in exchange for his room and board. … (United States v. Kattar (1st Cir. 1988) 840 F.2d 118, 127 .) His or her goal must be “not simply to obtain a conviction, but to obtain a fair conviction.” (Brown v.

Gray v. Brinkerhoff

41 Cal. 2d 180 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1953

(See Satterlee v. Orange Glen School Dist. (1947), 29 Cal.2d 581, 589 [ 177 P.2d 279 ] ; Ornales v. Wigger (1950), 35 Cal.2d 474, 477-480 [ 218 P.2d 531 ] ; Finney v. … (See LeBlanc v. Browne (1947), 78 Cal.App.2d 63, 71-75 [ 177 P.2d 347 ].)

Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel

3 Cal. 3d 756 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1970

Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal.3d 351, 366, fn. 18 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 337 , 461 P.2d 617 ].) … McEachen (1959) 51 Cal.2d 448, 454 [ 334 P.2d 870 ]; Christian v. Goodwin (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 650, 652-655 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 507 ]; cf. Brown v.

Gervasoni v. City of Petaluma

189 Cal. 306 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1922

In the ease of Alemany v. … (Scully v. Squier, 13 Idaho, 417 [30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 183, 90 Pac. 573 ] ; Parchen v. Ashby, 5 Mont. 68 [ 1 Pac. 204 ]; Ashby v. Hall, 119 U. S. 526 [ 30 L. Ed. 469 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 308, see, also, Rose’s U. S.

Maloney v. Rath

69 Cal. 2d 442 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1968

Although there is language in Ponce v. … Morris (1952) 39 Cal.2d 450, 456 [ 247 P.2d 352 ]; Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation (1943) 23 Cal.2d 256 [ 143 P.2d 929 ]; Rest.2d Torts (1965) § 422) and to comply with applicable safety ordinances (Finnegan v.

People v. McCart

32 Cal. 3d 338 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1982

(Select Base Materials v. Board *343 of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) We shall review the section in its entirety. … (Hoag v. Howard (1880) 55 Cal. 564, 565 ; Corey v. Knight (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 671, 680 [ 310 P.2d 673 ].) Language in subdivision (b) indicates this principle is appropriately applied here.

Fisk v. Central Pacific Railroad

72 Cal. 38 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1887

(King v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 9 Cush. 112 ; Chicago R. R. Co. v. Harney, 28 Ind. 28 ; Ohio R. R. Co. v. Hammersley, 28 Ind. 371 ; Gartland v. Toledo R. R. Co., 67 Ill. 498 ; Brown v. Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592 .) … (Coombs v. New Bedford C. Co., 102 Mass. 572 ; Grizzle v. Frost, 3 Fost. & F. 622; Dowling v. Allen, 74 Mo. 16 ; Railroad Co. v. Fort, 17 Wall. 554 ; Kline v. C. P. R. R., 37 Cal. 400 ; Sullivan v. India Mfg.

People v. Pieters

52 Cal. 3d 894 · California Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1991

(Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236, 257 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 ].) … Brown (1966) 63 Cal.2d 841 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 409 P.2d 689 ] (apportionment based upon faulty geographic assumptions may be corrected in spite of statute).

Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v. City Council of Los Angeles

23 Cal. 3d 917 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1979

Bradley v. Richmond School Board (1974) 416 U.S. 696 [ 40 L.Ed.2d 476 , 94 S.Ct. 2006 ] is perhaps the leading case on point. … Interest v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 241 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 766 ].)

Dehail v. Morford

95 Cal. 457 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1892

It was said in Hewes v. … Reis, 40 Cal. 263 : “ The right to appear before the board and object cannot certainly excuse the performance of those acts which are conditions precedent to the exercise of the power, nor does this right of remonstrance

Merced Bank v. Ivett

127 Cal. 134 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1899

The board of directors that resolved the bank into liquidation at the next regular meeting had the same power to resolve it out of liquidation. … It has been held in this state in Bonney v.

Scott v. Industrial Accident Commission

46 Cal. 2d 76 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1956

(Greene v. Superior Court (1951), 37 Cal.2d 307, 310-311 [ 231 P.2d 821 ]; Browne v. Superior Court (1940), 16 Cal.2d 593, 597, 602 [ 107 P.2d 1 , 131 A.L.R. 276 ]; Slinack v. … (See, e.g., Greene v. Superior Court (1951), supra, 37 Cal.2d 307, 312 [child custody, guardianship]; Brown v.

People v. Tanner

24 Cal. 3d 514 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1979

(See People v. … Finally, there exists the executive statement of Governor Brown issued by press release in which he explained the effects of the legislation.