Case law

Lakeside Ditch Co. v. Crane

80 Cal. 181 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1889

The statute does not confer upon the board of water commissioners the right to take away the interest which a prior appropriator has in the waters of a stream. … (Oroville & V. R. R. v. Plumas Co., 37 Cal. 361 .)

Stroud v. Superior Court

98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 677 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 2000

(See Lewis v. Superior Court (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 494, 496-499 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 80 ]; People v. Katzman (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 777, 787-789 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 319 ].) … Mosk, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

City of Los Angeles v. Lankershim

160 Cal. 800 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1911

We *802 need do no more than refer to such familiar cases as Ex parte Mirande, 73 Cal. 365 , [ 14 Pac. 888 ]; Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 230 , [ 24 Pac. 383 ; City of Pasadena v. … Stimson, 91 Cal. 238 , [27 Pac. 604]; County of El Dorado v. Meiss, 100 Cal. 268 , [ 34 Pac. 716 ]; Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136 , [ 44 Pac. 915 , 45 Pac. 1057 ]; Van Harlingen v. Doyle, 134 Cal. 53 , [54 L. R.

City of Redondo Beach v. Taxpayers, Property Owners, Etc., City of Redondo Beach

54 Cal. 2d 126 · California Supreme Court · May 13, 1960

(Board of Supervisors v. Rechenmacher, 105 Cal.App.2d 39, 43-44 [232 P.2d 514]; City of Redding v. Holland, 75 Cal.App.2d 178, 181 [ 170 P.2d 132 ].) … (May v. Board of Directors, 34 Cal.2d 125, 128-129 [ 208 P.2d 661 ].)

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 .)

Ansell v. City of San Diego

35 Cal. 2d 76 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1950

Dist. v. … City of Los Angeles), and Saldana v.

Olsen v. Gray

147 Cal. 112 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1905

It was, according to the testimony of the first officer of the ship, a permanent piece of work which was kept and used on board the ship all the time. … It is true, as is said in Sappenfield v. Main-St. etc. R. R.

Courtell v. McEachen

51 Cal. 2d 448 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1959

(Green v. Southern Pac. Co., 132 Cal. 254 [ 64 P. 255 ] ; Hall v. City & County of San Francisco, 188 Cal. 641 [ 206 P. 459 ]; Kenny v. Kennedy, supra, 9 Cal.App. 350 .) … Failure to allege any fact or facts from which the negligence occurred renders the complaint fatal (Church v. Headrick & Brown, 101 Cal.App.2d 396 [ 225 P.2d 558 ] ; Potter 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.

People v. Kuches

120 Cal. 566 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1898

(State v. Cone, 1 Jones, 18 .) … (People v. Johnson, 106 Cal. 289, 295 ; Stout v. State, 22 Tex. App. 339; State v. Marcks, 140 Mo. 656 ; State v. De Long, 96 Iowa, 471 , opinion.)

Kruse v. Pillsbury

174 Cal. 222 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1917

In the case of Crapo v. … Ed. 1071 ] : ‘All of them, however, so far as transactions had on board are concerned, are deemed to be within the country of their owners.

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 .)

Votaw v. Farmers Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange

15 Cal. 2d 24 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1940

(Sly v. American Indemnity Co., 127 Cal. … For example, the case of Firkins v. Zurich General A. & L. Ins. Co., 111 Cal.

Town of Mill Valley v. House

142 Cal. 698 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1904

In Rice v. Board of Trustees, 107 Cal. 398 , it was *700 held that under the provisions of the same act there could be a valid issue of bonds for the construction of a sewer, and in the ease of City of Redondo Beach v. … (Electric Light Co. v. San Bernardino, 100 Cal. 348 .)

Dalrymple v. Hanson

1 Cal. 125 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1850

materials for a house, together with certain boxes of merchandise, consisting of hardware, from Baltimore to San Francisco, on the defendant’s ship called the Jane Parker—that the house and merchandise, instead of being put on board … We have held, at this term of the court, in Ringgold v.

Hoadley v. City & County of San Francisco

50 Cal. 265 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

There are many authorities opposed to this view, but there are others which sustain it, among which are Commonwealth v. Alberger, 1 Whart. 486 ; Rung v. Shoenberger, 2 Watts, 23; Commonwealth v. … . & R. 395; Baxter v. Commonwealth, 3 Pa. 253 ; Penny Pot Landing Case, 16 Pa. St. 94; Jersey City v. Morris Canal Co., 1 Beas. (N. J.) 227; Jersey City v. State, 1 Vroom, 521 .

Gerdes v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

219 Cal. 459 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1933

Among the men to whom he spoke was Commissioner Myers of the Board of Public Works, to whom he pointed out the gas leak. … (Ed wards v. Gullick, 213 Cal. 86 [ 1 Pac. (2d) 11 ]; Gonzalez v. Nichols, 110 Cal. App. 738 [ 294 Pac. 758 ].) We find no other errors which require a reversal. The judgment is affirmed.

Estate of Belshaw

190 Cal. 278 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1923

Simonds, supra; Kelly's Heirs v. McGuire, supra; Den v. Searing, 8 N.J.L. 340 ; Conkling v. Brown, 57 Barb. [N.Y.] 265, 276; Amy v. Amy, 12 Utah, 278 [ 42 P. 1121 ]; Cox v. … In Rowley v.

People v. Engelman

121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 862 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2002

Castro (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 849, 851 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 280 ]; People v. Brown (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 476, 478-479 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 217 ]; People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. … Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Capeon v. Hitchcock

98 Cal. 427 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1893

(Manning v. Den, 90 Cal. 610 ; Burke v. Turney, 54 Cal. 486 ; Daly v. San Francisco, 72 Cal. 154 ; Dougherty v. Hitchcock, 35 Cal. 512 .) … (In Matter of Yick Wo, 68 Cal. 304 ; Christy v. Board of Supervisors Sacramento Co., 39 Cal. 10 .)