Case law

Bates v. Gerber

82 Cal. 550 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1890

Under this act the rule laid down in *555 Soher v. … The statute under consideration in the case of Davis v.

Conness v. McCarty

216 Cal. 415 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1932

At about 7:30 o’clock the two men had observed the young women, with whom they were unacquainted, waiting to board a street-car bound for the *417 beaches, and had invited them to drive. … Hatzahorzian v. Bucker-Fuller Desk Co., 197 Cal. 82 [41 A. L. R. 1027, 239 Pac. 709 ], and other cases of like tenor are distinguishable from the instant ease on the facts.

Faulkner v. Hendy

103 Cal. 15 · California Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1894

Lord Brougham, in Docker v. Somes, 2 Mylne & K. 655, answers this question. … (See Brown v. De Tastat, 1 Jacob, 284; Crawshay v. Collins, 2 Russ. 325; Featherstonhaugh v.. Turner, 25 Beav. 382; ( Willett v. Blanford, 1 Hare, 253.)

Hartford v. Superior Court

47 Cal. 2d 447 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1956

(See In re Hindi, supra; Rediker v. … Bank v. Eastman, 144 Cal. 487, 491-492 [ 77 P. 1043 , 103 Am.St.Rep. 95 , 1 Ann.Cas. 626]; Brown v.

Bryant v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

174 Cal. 737 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1917

(Board of Commrs. v. Mutchler, 137 Ind. 140 , [ 36 N. E. 534 ].) Nor does the added circumstance that both *740 persons were employed by or interested in the same corporation necessarily alter the situation. … Such a case is Wentworth v.

In Re Petty

29 Cal. 3d 356 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1981

(See Lewis v. … (See Tomlinson v.

Brazil v. Silva

181 Cal. 490 · California Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1919

(Brown v. Lynch, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 147; Williams v. Fitch, 18 N. … While Murphy v.

Edmiston v. Superior Court

22 Cal. 3d 699 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1978

Brown for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Heily, Blase, Ellison & Wellcome and Jay H. Sorensen for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION CLARK, J. … Relying on Bailey v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 970 [ 140 Cal.

Knowles v. Crocker Estate Co.

149 Cal. 278 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1906

(Minturn v. Burr, 16 Cal. 110 ; Shelby v. Houston, 38 Cal. 410 ; Brumagim v. Bradshaw, 39 Cal. 24 ; Gray v. Collins, 42 Cal. 152 ; Goodrich v. Van Landigham, 46 Cal. 601 .) … (Gray v. Collins, 42 Cal. 152 ; Brown v. Perry, 39 Cal. 23 .)

Ott Hardware Co. v. Davis

165 Cal. 795 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1913

(Ruperich v. Baehr, 142 Cal. 190 , [ 75 Pac. 782 ]; Payne v. … (Wood v. Mayor, 73 N. Y. 556 ; Board of Supervisors v. Ellis, 59 N. Y. 620 ; People v. Field, 58 N. Y. 491 ; Village etc. v. Fish, 156 N. Y. 363 , [ 50 N. E. 973 ]; Cumberland Co. v. Edwards, 76 Ill. 544 ; McLean v.

People v. Central Pacific Railroad

43 Cal. 398 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1872

(Beans v. Emanuelli, 36 Cal. 117 ; Butterfield v. C. P. R. R. Co., 37 id. 381.) … In the case of McCullough v.

Curtin v. Arroyo Ditch & Water Co.

147 Cal. 337 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1905

There is a provision in the by-laws as follows: “It shall be in the discretion of the board of directors to withhold the water from any person failing to pay any assessment after ■the same has become, delinquent according … Appellant cites Mahoney v. Bostwick, 96 Cal. 54 , [ 31 Am. St. Rep. 175 , 30 Pac. 1020 ], as sustaining his. contention.

Best v. Wohlford

144 Cal. 733 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1904

(Rollins v. Wright, 93 Cal. 395 ; Davis v. … In Law v.

People v. Slayton

112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 561 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2001

(See People v. … J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Brown, J., and Lambden, J., * concurred. 1 Miranda v.

Stockton Savings & Loan Society v. Harrold

127 Cal. 612 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1900

(Bull v. Coe, 77 Cal. 55 ; 11 Am. St. Rep. 235 ; Woodward v. Brown, 119 Cal. 283 ; 63 Am. St. Rep. 108 , and cases cited.) … (Compare McDougal v. Downey, 45 Cal. 165 ; Hunt v. Dohrs, 39 Cal. 304 .)

City of Los Angeles v. Anderson

206 Cal. 662 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1929

Co. v. … State Board of Harbor Commrs. v. Kerber, 152 Cal. 731, 733, 734 [ 125 Am. St. Rep. 93 , 93 Pac. 878 ] ; Cimpher v. City of Oakland, 162 Cal. 87, 88-90 [ 121 Pac. 374 ]; City of Oakland v. Wheeler, 34 Cal.

Rainey v. Michel

6 Cal. 2d 259 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1936

However, a reading of French v. Teschemaker, McGowan v. McDonald, Wood v. … Ed. 163 ]; Barth v. Pock, 51 Mont. 418 [ 155 Pac. 282 ] ; Melaven v. Schmidt, 34 N. M. 443 [ 283 Pac. 900 ] ; Williams v. Nall, 108 Ky. 21 [ 55 S. W. 706 ]; Somerville v. St. Louis Min. & Mill.

Lineker v. Ayeshford

1 Cal. 75 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1850

In Thompson v. … This being so, we see no ground upon which the doctrine of Morrison v. Gray, and Griffith v.

Phelan v. Quinn

130 Cal. 374 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1900

(Freeman on Judgments, 4th ed., sec. 249; 2 Black on Judgments, secs. 731-33; Lillis v. Emigrant Ditch Co., 95 Cal. 558 ; Cromwell v. County of Sacramento, 94 U. S. 353 .) … (See Woolverton v. Baker, 98 Cal. 628 ; Parnell v. Hahn, 61 Cal. 131 .)

People v. French

12 Cal. 2d 720 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1939

(People v. Troche, supra; People v. Leong Fook, supra; State v. Lawrence, 57 Me. 574 .) … McCracken charged the board with having totally failed in proper and efficient control of the liquor problem. The defendant was an employee of said board. Mrs.