Case law

Anchester v. Keck

214 Cal. 207 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1931

(Glock v. Howard, 123 Cal. 1, 9 [ 69 Am. St. Rep. 17 , 43 L. R. A. 199, 55 Pac. 713 ].) But he who seeks equity should do equity. … (Miller v. Wade, 87 Cal. 410 [ 25 Pac. 487 ]; Davey v. Southern Pac. Co., 116 Cal. 325 [ 48 Pac. 117 ]; Bailey v. Brown, 4 Cal. App. 515 [ 88 Pac. 518 ].)

Caldwell v. Grand Lodge of United Workmen of Cal.

148 Cal. 195 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1905

(Supreme Lodge K. of H. v. Oeters, 95 Va. 610 , [ 29 S. E. 323 ]; Ballou v. Gile, 50 Wis. 619 , [ 7 N. W. 561 ]; Alexander v. Parker, 144 Ill. 355 , [ 33 N. E. 183 ]; American Legion of Honor v. … (Wist v. Grand Lodge, 22 Or. 271 , [ 29 Pac. 610 , 29 Am. St. Rep. 603 ]; Masonic Ben. Assn. v. Serverson, 71 Conn. 719 , [ 43 Atl. 192 ].)

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.

Donald v. Beals

57 Cal. 399 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

The rule is thus stated by Selden, J., in Williamson v. Brown, 15 N. … (Quivey v. Baker, 37 Cal. 465 .) Judgment and order affirmed. McKinstry, J., and Boss, J., concurred.

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.

Beckett v. Kaynar Manufacturing Co.

49 Cal. 2d 695 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1958

(iv) June 25, 1956, both parties consented to an extension of time as requested by the board of arbitrators in which they could make their award. … (Marshall v. Hancock, 80 Cal. 82, 84 [ 22 P. 61 ]; Ogden v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 26, 28 [ 276 P.2d 146 ]; Newman v. Sunde, 23 Cal.App.2d 332, 335 [2] [ 73 P.2d 260 ]; Abrams v.

Coffey v. Edmonds

58 Cal. 521 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

The Court: At the election held November 2d, 1880, in the City and and County of San Francisco, for Judge of the Superior Court, James V. Coffey, the contestant, and M. A. Edmonds, the respondent, were voted for. … The Board of Election Commissioners declared and certified the result of the election to be that M. A. Edmonds received 20,476 votes, and James V. Coffey 20,474 votes, and declared Edmonds to be elected.

People ex rel. Attorney General v. Naglee

1 Cal. 232 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1850

In support of this may be seen the following authorities : McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316, 425 ; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 1 ; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Peters, 561 ; Brown v. … In the cases of Norris v. The City of Boston, and Smith v.

Bullfrog Goldfield R. R. Co. v. Jordan

174 Cal. 342 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1917

tender to respondent, Secretary of State of the state of Cali-" fornia, and offered for filing in the office of that official a certified copy of its articles of incorporation, and a certified copy of a resolution of its board … Co. v. Comnonwealth, 207 Mass. 381 , [ 93 N. E. 831 ]; S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 212 Mass. 35 , [Ann. Cas. 1913C, 805, 98 N. E. 1056 ]); while almost precisely in point are Sleicher v.

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 .)

People v. Jackson

44 Cal. 2d 511 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1955

Brown, Attorney General, Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Attorney General, Thomas C. … Brown, 29 Cal.2d 555, 559 [ 176 P.2d 929 ] [victim forcibly raped and struck by defendant]; People v. Chessman, 38 Cal.2d 166, 185 [ 238 P.2d 1001 ] [forcible rape and a violation of section 288a of the Penal Code].)

Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.

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

Assn. v. Siliznoff, 38 Cal.2d 330, 341 [ 240 P.2d 282 ]; Guillory v. Godfrey, 134 Cal. … App. 677 [ 145 S.E.2d 776 ]; Ruiz v. Bertolotti (1962) 37 Misc.2d 1067 [ 236 N.Y.S.2d 854 ]; Browning v. Slenderella Systems of Seattle (1959) 52 Wn.2d 440 [ 341 P.2d 859, 865 ]; Amos v. Prom (N.D.Iowa 1953) 115 F.

People v. Hernandez

47 Cal. 3d 315 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1988

The carpeting in the van was a burnt-orange or rust-brown color. … (Id. at p. 878, fn. 10; and see People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 536-537 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ]; see also Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) 455 U.S. 104 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 1 , 102 S.Ct. 869 ]; Lockett v.

O'MALLEY v. Petroleum Maintenance Co.

48 Cal. 2d 107 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1957

If an Agreement cannot be reached the Company and Union shall select a third party to sit with a Company official as a Board of Arbitration with a decision of any two to be binding on the Company and the Union. … (See also Stenzor v. Leon, 130 Cal.App.2d 729, 732 [ 279 P.2d 802 ] ; Flores v. Barman, 130 Cal.App.2d 282, 286 [ 279 P.2d 81 ] ; Crofoot v.

People v. Superior Court (Smolin)

41 Cal. 3d 758 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1986

(Kentucky v. Dennison (1861) 65 U.S. 66, 103 [ 16 L.Ed. 717, 728 ]; State of South Dakota v. Brown (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 765, 768-769 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 758 , 576 P.2d 473 ].) … Valles v. Brown (1981) 97 N.M. 327 [ 639 P.2d 1181, 1184 ].) The courts of California are not precluded from assessing the effect of that law on the controversy.

City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

51 Cal. 2d 423 · California Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1959

Superior Court, 25 Cal.App.2d 346 , 352 et seq. [ 77 P.2d 491 ]; State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.App.2d 374, 378 [ 42 P.2d 1076 ]; cf. Moore v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.2d 421, 424 [ 57 P.2d 1314 ].) … Wehrle v. Board of W. & P. Commrs., 211 Cal. 70, 72-73 [ 293 P. 67 ]; Nickerson v. County of San Bernardino, 179 Cal. 518 , 521 et seq. [ 177 P. 465 ]; Burns v.

Muldrow v. Norris

12 Cal. 331 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1859

In the cases of Mitchell v. Stavely, 16 East., and Wright v. … See, also, Brown v. Merrill, 4 Eliz., Dryer, 216; Bisden v. Inglet, 2 Croke, Eliz., 838; Ormelade v. Coke, 4 Croke, Jac., 354 ; Bradford v. Bryan, 7 Mod. 349.

Merced Irrigation District v. Woolstenhulme

4 Cal. 3d 478 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1971

Water Resources v. Brown (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 597, 599 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 363 ]; Community Redevelopment Agency v. Henderson (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 336, 343 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 311 ]; County of Los Angeles v. … Wks. v. Shasta Pipe etc. Co. (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 520, 539 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 618 ]; People ex rel. Dept. Water Resources v. Brown (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 597, 599 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 363 ]; Community Redevelopment Agency v.

Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera

36 Cal. 3d 403 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1984

Defendants contend that Fowler v. State Personnel Board (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 964 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 292 ] is controlling. We disagree. … As in Los Angeles Fire & Police Protective League v.

Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

42 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1986

(Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Board of Commissioners (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 221, 226 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 800 ].) … In 1978, on the basis of Zee Toys , the State Board of Equalization instructed the remaining counties to levy “escaped assessments” for the years in question.