Case law

Goldman v. Murray

164 Cal. 419 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1912

The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff on all the issues, saving that it found that the promissory notes were not duly or at all authorized by the corporation or the board of directors thereof. … But while Cashman v. Harrison does support this view, its declarations are at variance with the earlier decisions of this court. Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 92 , [ 73 Am. Dec. 522 ] ; Pierce v.

McClure v. Riley

198 Cal. 23 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1926

Carleton, 30 Wis. 409 ; Hannibal v. Marion Co., 69 Mo. 576 ; State v. Ranson, *27 73 Mo. 86 ; People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 635 ; San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 60 Cal. 12 ; Abeel v. … Rep. 75 , 90 Pac. 517 ]; Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court, 171 Cal. 677 [ 154 Pac. 845 ]; People v. Jordan, 172 Cal. 394 [ 156 Pac. 451 ]; Bassford v.

Gillaspie v. Hagans

90 Cal. 90 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1891

plaintiff agreeing to finish the building within a reasonable time, according to the original plans and specifications, except as varied by consent of parties, and to build on the premises a laundry and wood-shed of rough boards … Proc., sec. 475; Hayne on New Trial and Appeal, sec. 286; Campbell v. Bear River etc. Co., 35 Cal. 682 ; Reynolds v. Lincoln, 71 Cal. 184 .)

People v. Morrison

21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 682 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2004

(United States v. Brown (5th Cir. 1980) 628 F.2d 471, 473 ; see also United States v. … Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1, 6-7 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 690 , 87 S.Ct. 785 ]; Brown v. Borg (9th Cir. 1991) 951 F.2d 1011, 1015 .)

People v. Rae

66 Cal. 423 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1885

What he did was this: In company with a confederate, who passed by the name of Turner, he boarded an emigrant train of the Central Pacific Bail-road Company, and engaged the prosecuting witness, who was a passenger on the … Still closer as respects the facts, and therefore more directly in point, is the case of Loomis et al. v. The People, 67 N. Y. 322 .

People v. Weatherton

59 Cal. 4th 589 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2014

Prejudgment “constitute[s] serious misconduct” (People v. Brown (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 476, 480), raising a presumption of prejudice. … (See People v. Brown, supra, 61 Cal.App.3d at p. 480.) He also told jurors, both before and during deliberations, that defendant deserved the death penalty, indicating that his mind was made up regarding guilt.

Waller v. Southern Pacific Co.

66 Cal. 2d 201 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1967

Co. (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 634, 647-650 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 146 ] ; Strobel v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co. (1959) 255 Minn. 201 [ 96 N.W.2d 195, 198-201 ]; Brown v. … However, cases both prior and subsequent to the foregoing have found this requirement satisfied by such diverse terms as “continued employment” (Brown v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co.

People v. Manuel G.

16 Cal. 4th 805 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1997

People v. … Mosk, J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Harder v. Allen

33 Cal. 2d 776 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1949

(Graham v. Bennet, 2 Cal. 503, 506 .) … (See Kyne v. Kyne, 38 Cal.App. 2d 122, 131-132 [ 100 P.2d 806 ], citing Paxton v. Paxton, 150 Cal. 667 [ 89 P. 1083 ]; also Kyne v. Kyne, 60 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 140 P.2d 886 ].)

MacIas v. State of California

10 Cal. 4th 844 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1995

(See Donahue v. … (See Macrie v.

Story v. Christin

14 Cal. 2d 592 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1939

(Attorney-General v. State Board Judges, 38 Cal. 291, 296 .) It is a matter of common knowledge that in the nursery business the young trees often remain in the soil for much longer than one year. … (Shasta Lumber Co. v. McCoy, 85 Cal. App. 468 [ 259 Pac. 965 ]; Charles J. Off & Co. v. Morehead, 255 Ill. 40 [ 85 N. E. 264 , 126 Am. St. Rep. 189 , 14 Ann. Cas. 434, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 167]; Swift & Co. v.

Bartholomae Oil Corp. v. Superior Court

18 Cal. 2d 726 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1941

Petitioner relies upon the cases of Gunder v. Gunder, 208 Cal. 559 [ 282 Pac. 794 ], Di Blasi v. Di Blasi, 209 Cal. 753 [ 290 Pac. 7 ], and Middleton v. Finney, 214 Cal. 523 [ 6 Pac. (2d) 938 , 78 A. L. … Board of Directors, 218 Cal. 221 [ 22 Pac. (2d) 509 ]; Clough v. Baber, 38 Cal. App. (2d) 50 [ 100 Pac. (2d) 519 ].)

Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.

2 Cal. 3d 493 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1970

Assn. v. Siliznoff, supra, 38 Cal.2d 330, 336-337 ; Vargas v. Ruggiero, 197 Cal.App.2d 709, 717-718 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 568 ]; Richardson v. Pridmore, 97 Cal.App.2d 124, 130 [ 217 P.2d 113 , 17 A.L.R.2d 929 ]; Bowden v. … See, e.g., Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. (Tex. 1967) 424 S.W.2d 627 ; Beavers v. Johnson (1965) 112 Ga.App. 677 [ 145 S.E.2d 776 ]; Ruiz v. Bertolotti (1962) 37 Misc.2d 1067 [ 236 N.Y.S.2d 854 ]; Browning v.

In Re Schoengarth

66 Cal. 2d 295 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1967

(Roberts v. Duffy (1914) 167 Cal. 629, 640-641 [140 P. 260]; People v. Ray (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 64, 69 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 113 ].) … (Hatfield v. Bailleaux (9th Cir. 1961) 290 F.2d 632, 638, 640 ; Austin v. Harris (W.D. Mo. 1964) 226 F.Supp. 304, 307 .)

El Dora Oil Co. v. Gibson

201 Cal. 231 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1927

The cases relied upon are Zane v. De Onativia, 135 Cal. 440 [ 67 Pac. 685 ], and Title Ins. Co. v. California Dev. Co., 168 Cal. 397 [ 143 Pac. 723 ]. … The cases of Roberts v. Security T. & S. Bank, 196 Cal. 557 [ 238 Pac. 673 ], and Sather Banking Co. v.

Pearsall v. Henry

153 Cal. 314 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1908

(Caldwell v. Carrington, 9 Pet. 86 ; McClure v. Otrich, 118 Ill. 320 , [ 8 N.E. 784 ]; Farwell v. Johnston, 34 Mich. 342 ; Baker v. Scott, 2 Thomp. C. (N.Y.) 606. See Swain v. … (Browne on Statute of Frauds, 5th ed., sec. 454; Williams v. Morris, 95 U.S. 456 ; Blum v. Robertson, 24 Cal. 142 ; Foster v. Maginnis, 89 Cal. 264 , [ 26 P. 828 ].)

Dwyer v. Parker

115 Cal. 544 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1897

The act likewise provided: “ That the board of supervisors may reject all bills presented to the county by justices of the peace and constables for fees in criminal cases in all cases or proceedings in which the district … I, sec. 11; Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 601 ; County of Orange v. Harris, 97 Cal. 602 ; Smith v. Strother, 68 Cal. 196 .)

Rutherford v. Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District

218 Cal. 242 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1933

(Henderson v. Oroville-Wyandotte Irr. Dist., 207 Cal. 215 [ 277 Pac. 487 ]; Dankert v. Oroville-Wyandotte Irr. Dist., 211 Cal. 87 [ 293 Pac. 785 ]; Henderson v. Oroville-Wyandotte Irr. … (Irwin v. McDowell, 4 Cal. Unrep. 329 [ 34 Pac. 708 ]; National Sewing Machine Co. v. Willcoz & Gibbs Sewing Machine Co., 74 Fed. 557 ; Lamb v. Milliken, 78 Colo. 564 [ 243 Pac. 624 ]; S. E. Hendricks Co. v.

Veriddo v. Renaud

35 Cal. 2d 263 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1950

In Huffaker v. … (Ruperich v. Baehr, 142 Cal. 190 [ 75 P. 782 ]; Lawson v. Lawson, 158 Cal. 446 [ 111 P. 354 ].)” Plaintiffs further urge that Von Arx v. City of Burlingame (1936), 16 Cal.App.2d 29 [ 60 P.2d 305 ], and Johnson v.

Smith v. Lewis

211 Cal. 294 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1930

To prevent a failure of justice, as where the governing board of directors or trustees of the corporation refuses to prosecute such an action, the law permits a stockholder to begin and *302 maintain it on behalf of the corporation … (Cheney v. Newberry & Co., 67 Cal. 126 [ 7 Pac. 445 ], Wing Ho v. Baldwin, 70 Cal. 194 [ 11 Pac. 565 ], and Quan Wye v. Chin Lin Hee, 123 Cal. 185 [ 55 Pac. 783 ].)