Case law

Fay v. Reed

128 Cal. 357 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1900

In McBean v. … Co. v.

Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy Scouts of America

17 Cal. 4th 670 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1998

BROWN, J. I concur in the judgment. In my view, however, the majority’s analysis cannot sustain the result. … Beginning at least with Isbister v.

Sbarboro v. Jordan

164 Cal. 51 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1912

As to such a convention, we have direct authority in this state, in the case of Hutchinson v. Brown, 122 Cal. 189 , [42 L. R. A. 232, 54 Pac. 738 ].

Johnson v. Langdon

135 Cal. 624 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1902

(People v. Goldstein, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 550; State v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., 29 Mo. App. 307 ; Stone v. Kellogg, 165 Ill. 204 ; 1 Foster v. White, 86 Ala. 469 ; Mitchell v. Rubber Reclaiming Co. … Rep. 406 ; Weihenmayer v. Bitner, 88 Md. 325 ; Cincinnati Volksblatt Co. v. Hoffmeister, 62 Ohio St. 199 ; 2 Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co., 176 U. S. 190 .)

Arroyo Ditch & Water Co. v. Baldwin

155 Cal. 280 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1909

(Holmes v. Warren, 145 Cal. 459 , [ 78 Pac. 954 ]; Coburn v. California Portland Cement Co., 144 Cal. 81 , [ 77 Pac. 771 ].) … In this behalf they cite Vineland Irrigation Dist. v.

Chapman v. Doray

89 Cal. 52 · California Supreme Court · May 7, 1891

In Schenck v. Bandmann, 81 Cal. 231 , the action was brought under the same statute to recover the declared penalty. … The statute complained of has been considered and upheld in the following cases: Loveland v. Garner, 71 Gal. 541; Beal v. Osborne, 72 Cal. 305 ; Schenclc v. Bandmann, 81 Cal. 231 .

Alvord v. Spring Valley Gold Co.

106 Cal. 547 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1895

It is contended by respondents that the case of Biddel v. Brizzolara, 64 Cal. 354 , is in conflict with this rule, but we are unable to perceive any such conflict. … (See, also, Flint v. Cadenasso, 64 Cal. 83 .)

Haggis v. City of Los Angeles

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 327 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 2000

(Creason v. … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

County of Los Angeles v. Riley

6 Cal. 2d 625 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1936

(Hill v. Board of Supervisors, 176 Cal. 84 [ 167 Pac. 514 ]; Reclamation District v. Superior Court, 171 Cal. 672 [ 154 Pac. 845 ].) … (County of Sacramento v. Chambers, supra; Singh v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. App. 64 [ 185 Pac. 985 ].)

Wutchumna Water Co. v. Superior Court

215 Cal. 734 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1932

Wheeler v. … (Halpern v. Superior Court, 190 Cal. 384 [ 212 Pac. 916 ]; Takekawa v. Hole, 170 Cal. 323 [ 149 Pac. 593 ] ; San Francisco v. Brown, 153 Cal. 644 [ 96 Pac. 281 ] ; Kaufman v. Shain, 111 Cal. 16 [ 52 Am. St.

Schmierer v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Ass'n

153 Cal. 208 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1908

the Association a mortuary premium for such an amount as the executive committee of the Association may deem requisite, which amount shall be at such rate, according to the age of each member, as may be established by the Board … This construction of the contract is in accord with that given to a like contract in the case of Gaut v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assoc., 121 Fed. 403 .

Prickett v. Royal Ins. Co. Ltd.

56 Cal. 2d 234 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1961

State Board of Equalization, 42 Cal.2d 376, 381 [ 267 P.2d 257 ] quoting from Estate of Platt, 21 Cal.2d 343, 352 [ 131 P.2d 825 ].) … (Ransom v. Penn. Mut. Life Ins.

Early v. Town of Redwood City

57 Cal. 193 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

If, therefore, the town of Redwood City owed Caddy nothing when a copy of attachment was served upon the town officers, in the action Peter Early v. … In the fifth finding, it is stated, that “ the whole of the $25,000 in bonds was placed on deposit in the Pacific Bank, subject to the order of the president and secretary of the board of trustees of said town of Eedwood

Wiggin v. Superior Court

68 Cal. 398 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1886

(Hastings v. Cunningham, 35 Cal. 550 ; Bell v. Thompson, 19 Cal. 706 ; Baldwin v. Kramer, 2 Cal. 582 ; Robb v. Robb, 6 Cal. 21 ; De Castro v. Richardson, 25 Cal. 52 ; Carpentier v. … (Hall v. Polack, 42 Cal. 218 .)

Schwartz-Torrance Investment Corp. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' Union

61 Cal. 2d 766 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1964

Thus in Hughes v. … In the light of this conclusion we need not consider defendant’s contention that jurisdiction to intervene in this dispute resides exclusively in the National Labor Relations Board.

Tustin Fruit Assn. v. Earl Fruit Co.

6 Cal. Unrep. 37 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1898

Proc., sec. 1854; Toohey v. Harding, 1 Fed. 174 , .177, 4 Hughes, 253 ; note to Rouse v. Whited, 82 Am. … Curtis, 116 Cal. 632 , 48 Pac. 793 ; Long v. Armsby, 43 Mo. App. 253 ; Gould v. Stein, 149 Mass. 570 , 14 Am. St. Rep. 455 , 5 L. R. A. 213, 22 N. E. 47 ; Maitland v. Martin, 86 Pa. 120 ; English v.

Jardine v. Superior Court

213 Cal. 301 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1931

Bank v. Durr, 257 U. S. 99 [ 66 L. Ed. 149 , 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 15, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes Supp.]; Swift v. San Francisco Stock & Exchange Board, 67 Cal. 567 [ 8 Pac. 94 ]; Clute v. … The decision upon which petitioner most strongly relies is Swift v. San Francisco Stock & Exchange. Board, supra.

926 N. Ardmore Ave., LLC v. Cnty. of L. A.

219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 695 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2017

(Thrifty Corp. v. … In United States v.

Reid v. Valley Restaurants, Inc.

48 Cal. 2d 606 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1957

This presumption, however, is not conclusive, and any statement to the contrary in Lahn v. … Structural Pest Control Board, 135 Cal.App.2d 289 [ 287 P.2d 17 ], and any inferences to the contrary in any other case or cases are disapproved.

Weinkauf v. Superior Court of Tuolumne County

64 Cal. 2d 662 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1966

(Meyer v. State Board of Equalization (1954) 42 Cal.2d 376, 387 [ 267 P.2d 257 ].) In the present case petitioner makes no such showing; the evidence, in any event, precludes it. … Third: Petitioner relies on Lund v.