Case law

Carpenter v. Shinners

108 Cal. 359 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1895

(Burnett v. Stearns, 33 Cal. 468 .) … (Lucas v. San Francisco, 7 Cal. 475 ; Harker v. Mayor etc. of New York, 17 Wend. 199 ; Haven v. New Hampshire Asylum, 13 N. H. 532; Gity of Napa v. Easterby, 61 Cal. 517 .)

National Reserve Co. of America v. Metropolitan Trust Co.

17 Cal. 2d 827 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1941

Supp. 261 ]; Steele v. Brazier, 139 Mo. App. 319 [ 123 S. W. 477 ]; Robinson v. Saxon Mills, 124 S. C. 415 [ 117 S. E. 424 ]; Morris v. McCulloch, 83 Pa. St. 34; [contra, Jackson v. Meinhardt, 99 Cal. … Watson, 184 Cal. 216 [ 193 Pac. 133 ]; Sherman v. International Life Ins. Co., 291 Mo. 139 [ 236 S. W. 634 ]), or for reformation (Beck-Brown Realty Co. v. Liberty Bell Ins. Co., 137 Misc. 263 [ 241 N. Y.

Mitau v. Roddan

149 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1906

To the same effect are Horsley v. Fawcett, 11 Beav. 565; Boyden v. Partridge, 2 Gray 190 ; Ashton v. Atlantic Bank, 3 Allen 217 ; Swift v. Stebbins, 4 Stew. & P. 447 ; Carey v. Brown, 92 U. S. 172 . … The court, in Carey v. Brown, 92 U. S. 172 , after declaring the general rule that all parties in interest were required to be joined, says: “To this rule there are several exceptions.

Owings v. Industrial Accident Commission

31 Cal. 2d 689 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1948

An opinion which is based on guess, surmise or conjecture has little, if any, evidentiary value (Brant v. Retirement Board of S. … Co., 169 Cal. 28 [ 145 P. 535 ]; Gazzera v. City and County of San Francisco, 70 Cal.App.2d 833 [ 161 P.2d 806 ]; Thoreau v. Industrial Acc. Com., 120 Cal.App. 67 [7 P.2d *693 767]; Barnett v. Atchison etc. Ry.

Davis v. Spring Valley Water Works

57 Cal. 543 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

That these fences were built of posts and two boards of irregular widths, placed horizontally from post to post. … Rollins et al. 30 id. 408 ; Brumagim v Bradshaw, 39 id. 24; Walsh v. Hill, 41 id. 582.)

Hind v. Overseas Agencies, Ltd.

189 Cal. 319 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1922

San Francisco, which means free on board in San Francisco, and is claimed by defendant to be free from dock charges and duty. … L., p. 745, and citations; Whittaker v. Dunlap-Morgan Co., 44 Cal. App. 140 [ 186 Pac. 181 ] ; Chandler Lumber Co. v. Radke, 136 Wis. 495 [22 L. R. A. (N. S.), 718, 118 N. W. 185 ].)

City & County of San Francisco v. County of Alameda

5 Cal. 2d 243 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1936

assessed by the assessor of the county, city and county, or municipal corporation in which said lands and improvements are located, and said assessment shall be subject to review, equalization and adjustment by the state board … (Miller & Lux v. Janus Co., 179 Cal. 189 [ 178 Pac. 716 ].)

Minturn v. Burr

16 Cal. 107 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

, some short time afterwards, was admitted into possession, and also some proof conducing to show that Burr had notice of the taking of this possession, and advised the taking or holding, Burr being the President of the Board … (Evill v. Conwell, 2 Blackf. 134 .) 4. There is nothing in the point that the complaint does not state an actual possession.

McCall v. PacifiCare of California, Inc.

106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 271 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 2001

Nursing Home v. … In Schweiker v.

Southern California Freight Lines v. Public Utilities Commission

35 Cal. 2d 586 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1950

Proc., § 1074 6 ; American Toll Bridge Co. v. Railroad Com. (1938), 12 Cal.2d 184, 190-193 [ 83 P.2d 1 ]; see Ashbury Truck Co. v. … authority of such tribunal, board, or officer.”

Ames v. City of San Diego

101 Cal. 390 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1894

(Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 530 ; San Francisco v. Ganavan, 42 Cal. 541 ; Townsend v. Greely, 5 Wall. 326 .) … (Hoadley v. San Francisco, 50 Cal. 265 ; People v. Pope, 53 Cal. 437 ; County of Yolo v. Barney, 79 Cal. 375 ; Board of Education v. Martin, 92 Cal. 209 .)

People v. McDonald

37 Cal. 3d 351 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1984

(United States v. Brown (D.C. … (E.g., United States v. Booth (9th Cir. 1981) 669 F.2d 1231, 1240 ; People v. Brown (1982) 110 Ill.App.3d 1125 [ 443 N.E.2d 665, 668 ]; State v. Chapman (La. 1981) 410 So.2d 689, 702 ; State v.

Estate of Baird

182 Cal. 338 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1920

Brown, executrix and executor, respectively; that petitioner is the child and son of the decedent and Lydia M. Valencia, and that neither the decedent nor Lydia M. … V. Tyler.” This was also true of the accounts for water, gas, and electricity.

Sutton v. Nicolaisen

5 Cal. Unrep. 348 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1896

In Gloster v. … In Huffman v. Hall, 102 Cal. 26 , 36 Pac. 417 , in which the same question was again raised, a different conclusion was reached, and Gloster v. Wade was expressly overruled. And in Cooper v.

People v. Maher

17 Cal. 3d 196 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1976

Brown (1975) 14 Cal.3d 571, 576-577 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 231 , 536 P.2d 1017 ] (Clark, J., dissenting); United Farm Workers of America v. … In People v.

Oberkotter v. Woolman

187 Cal. 500 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1921

These changes have been recommended to the school board by principal Guy V. Whaley for the reason that he considers these positions as they exist, weak spots in the public school system of instruction.” … (Ingraham v. Lyon, 105 Cal. 254 -257, [ 38 Pac. 892 ]; Schomberg v. Walker, 132 Cal. 224 -227, [ 64 Pac. 290 ]; Frolich v.

Mallarino v. Hammersmith

36 Cal. 2d 531 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1950

(See Estate of Lawrence, 17 Cal.2d 1, 7 [ 108 P.2d 893 ]; Estate of Browne, 175 Cal. 361, 362 [ 165 P. 960 ].) … (Heimann v. City of Los Angeles, 30 Cal.2d 746, 757 [ 185 P.2d 597 ]; Lawless v. Calaway, 24 Cal.2d 81, 91 [ 147 P.2d 604 ] ; Tomaier v. Tomaier, 23 Cal.2d 754, 760 [ 146 P.2d 905 ]; Cami *538 netii v. Pacific Mut.

Lilienthal v. Ballou

125 Cal. 183 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1899

All “recoveries” to be distributed through the board of trade to the undersigned creditors; 7. … (George v. Pierce, 123 Cal. 172 .)

Keizer v. Adams

2 Cal. 3d 976 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1970

(See Munns v. Stenman, supra, 152 Cal.App.2d 543, 552 .) … (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board (1968) 69 Cal.2d 506, 508, fn. 1 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 446 P.2d 313 ]; Smith v. Anderson (1967) 67 Cal.2d 635, 637, fn. 1 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 391 , 433 P.2d 183 ].)

Williams v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

177 Cal. 235 · California Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1918

Two other men were working with him in the car which was of the kind known as a “gondola,” being open *236 at the top and having a floor sloping toward the sides in both directions from a central board which was two feet … (Mitchell v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 87 Cal. 62 , [11 L. R. A. 130, 25 Pac. 245 ].) The question involved in this case was exactly of the same character and should have been left, in like manner, to the jury.