Case law

Seale v. Ford

29 Cal. 104 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

And the older title must be a “ perfect title,” that did not require presentation to, and confirmation by, the Board of Land Commissioners; or, at least, it must be under a grant by specific boundaries, which could not be … The word is often used in this comprehensive sense in Waterman v. Smith , before cited, and other cases of a similar character.

Conservatorship of Roulet

23 Cal. 3d 219 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1979

(E.g., Reed v. Reed (1971) 404 U.S. 71, 75-76 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 225, 229-230 , 92 S.Ct. 251 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ]; Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. … (E.g., Rinaldi v. Yeager (1966) 384 U.S. 305, 308-309 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 577, 579-580 , 86 S.Ct. 1497 ]; Brown v. Merlo, supra, at p. 861 ; Hayes v.

In Re Qawi

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 2004

(See Ng v. … (See Sell v.

People v. Cowan

50 Cal. 4th 401 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 2010

Uttecht v. Brown, supra, 551 U.S. at p. 18 ; People v. … (People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 467-468.)

Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Industrial Accident Commission

187 Cal. 615 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1921

(Carstens v. Pillsbury, 172 Cal. 572 , [ 158 Pac. 218 ] ; Pacific G. & E. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 180 Cal. 497, *618 [ 181 Pac. 788 ].) … Co. v. Van Loben Sels et al., 173 Cal. 228 , [ 159 Pac. 600 ] ; Shaughnessy v. American Surety Co., 138 Cal. 543 , [ 69 Pac. 250 , 71 Pac. 701 ]; Coburn v. Townsend, 103 Cal. 233 , [ 37 Pac. 202 ].)

Russell v. Pacific Can Co.

116 Cal. 527 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1897

And the principle in the case here under consideration is no different than if injury to this plaintiff had been produced by the giving way of the boards of the closet, or the caving in of the vault. … As defining the duty of the master to his servant, the court of appeals of New York, in Ryan v. Fowler, 24 N. Y. 414 , 82 Am.

Calpetro Producers Syndicate v. Chas M. Woods Co.

206 Cal. 246 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1929

The whole writing with respect to the transaction read as follows: “This is to certify that I have sold to William Miller my brown Maltese Jack, for $1,000. N. Van Tassel.” … .” *253 In Peterson v. Chaix, 5 Cal.

Hocking v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.

37 Cal. 2d 644 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1951

. *645 Wing, Wing & Brown and Merrill Brown for Appellant. Lawrence L. Otis, Gilbert E. Harris, James F. Healey, Jr., and Sarau, Adams, Neblett & Sarau for Respondents. SCHAUER, J. … Co. v. Natben Const.

Weekes v. City of Oakland

21 Cal. 3d 386 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 1978

(Ex Parte Braun, supra, 141 Cal. 204, 206 ; In re Johnson (1920) 47 Cal.App. 465, 466 [ 190 P. 852 ]; see Beamer v. Franchise Tax Board (1977) 19 Cal.3d 467, 475 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 563 P.2d 238 ].) … Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 647 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) We see no reason either to avoid or to ignore application of that principle here.

Firth v. Marovich

160 Cal. 257 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1911

(Quatman v. McCray, 128 Cal. 285 , [ 60 Pac. 855 ]; Sanborn v. Rice, 129 Mass. 387 ; Evans v. Foss, 194 Mass. 513 , [ 80 N. E. 587 , 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1039]; Meigs v. Milligan, 177 Pa. … St. 66, [ 35 Atl. 600 ]; Boyden v. Roberts, 131 Wis. 659 .)

Hellman v. Shoulters

114 Cal. 136 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1896

A question somewhat similar was considered in Earle v. Board of Education, 55 Cal. 492 . … See on this point, Pennie v. Reis, 80 Cal. 270 ; University v. Bernard, 57 Cal. 613 ; Ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 100 ; Anderson v. Commonwealth, 18 Gratt. 300 ; School Dist. v. School Dist., 135 Ill. 464 ; State v.

Ball v. Tolman

119 Cal. 358 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1897

By reference to Eyre v. … It was said in Schenck v. Bandmann, 81 Cal. 231 , where this question of intent was under discussion (and which case, it was said in Miles v. Woodward, supra, should be read with Eyre v.

Moran v. Ross

79 Cal. 159 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1889

Co. v. Caldwell, 31 Cal. 368 .) … The act organizing and defining the powers of the board of railroad commissioners provides:— “ The term * transportation companies ’ shall be deemed to mean and include: 1.

Porter v. Elizalde

125 Cal. 204 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1899

In Price v. … Similar rulings have been made in Holmes v. Board of Trade, 81 Mo. 137 ; Young v. Crawford, supra; Savings Bank v. Benton, 2 Met. (Ky.) 240; Evans v. Mohr, 153 Ill. 561 ; Ennis v. Hultz, 46 Iowa, 76 .

Younger v. Jordan

42 Cal. 2d 757 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1954

(Bank of California v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 516, 521-522 [ 106 P.2d 879 ]; California Cotton Credit Corp. v. Superior Court, 122 Cal.App. 404, 407 [ 10 P.2d 176 ]; Hershey v. … Cole, 130 Cal.App. 683, 701 [ 20 P.2d 972 ]; Ash v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App. 800, 803-804 [ 166 P. 841 ].) In Ash v.

Leonard v. Fallas

51 Cal. 2d 649 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1959

I agree to pay you through escrow the Realty Board Commission which is 5% upon the first $100,000.00 of the purchase price, and 2%% upon the balance of the purchase price, if said property is sold on the above terms or any … In Hobson v.

Motor Transit Co. v. Railroad Commission

189 Cal. 573 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1922

(Oro Electric Corp. v. Railroad Commission, 169 Cal. 466, 475 [ 147 Pac. 118 ]; Public Utilities v. Garviloch, 54 Utah, 406 [ 181 Pac. 272 , P. U. R. 1919E, p. 182].) … The Public Utility Act invests the board of railroad commissioners with large powers in the control of public utilities, and gives it powers to fine and punish for contempt.

Foxen v. City of Santa Barbara

166 Cal. 77 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1913

It was accordingly held that the board of works might construct public improvements by day labor. … (Santa Cruz Rock Pavement Co. v. Broderick, 113 Cal. 629 , [ 45 Pac. 863 ]; City Improvement Co. v. Broderick, 125 Cal. 139 , [ 57 Pac. 776 ] ; Times Publishing Co. v. Weatherby, 139 Cal. 619 , [ 73 Pac. 465 ] ; Shaw v.

Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. All Parties & Persons

47 Cal. 2d 597 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1957

Dist. v. … new Director of the Department of Water Besources assumed the functions of the Water Besources Board.

Kidwell v. Ketler

146 Cal. 12 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1905

And, as is said in Brown v. Newall, 2 Mylne & C., 558, “Now it is a rule of pleading that although a party is bound by the facts which he states, he is not bound by his statement of the legal consequences of those. … (Cochran v. McDowell, 15 Ill. 11 ; Chaffin v. Heirs of Kimball, 23 Ill. 35 ; Cooper v. Mayhew, 40 Mich. 528 ; Collins v. Trotter, 81 Mo. 275, 280 ; Crain v. Parker, 1 Ind. 374 ; Lathers v. Van Epp, 4 Lans. 213 .)