Case law

California Domestic Water Co. v. County of Los Angeles

10 Cal. App. 185 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 1909

Bank v. Board of Equalization, 97 Cal. 325 , [ 32 Pac. 312 ]; Savings & Loan Soc. v. San Francisco, 146 Cal. 673 , [ 80 Pac. 1086 ].) … (Stanley v. Board of Supervisors, 121U. S. 535, 550, [7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1234].)

Beehan v. Lido Isle Community Assn.

70 Cal. App. 3d 858 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 1977

(Marsili v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 51 Cal.App.3d 313, 324 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 313 ]; Fairchild v. Bank of America, 192 Cal.App.2d 252, 256-257 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 491 ]; Findley v. … The board of directors may make incorrect decisions, as well as correct ones, so long as it is faithful to the *867 corporation and uses its best business judgment.” (Findley v.

Garcia v. California Employment Stabilization Commission

71 Cal. App. 2d 107 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1945

In reaching our determination that this matter must be remanded, we are strongly influenced by the case of Eagadone v. … Com. v. Butte Co. etc. Assn., 25 Cal.2d 624 [ 154 P.2d 892 ]; Matson Terminals Inc. v. California Emp. Com., 24 Cal.2d 695 [ 151 P.2d 202 ]; California Emp. Com. v. Los Angeles etc.

Sandell, Inc. v. Bailey

212 Cal. App. 2d 920 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1963

BROWN, J. Appellant appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent for $50,000 due on a note, plus interest and attorneys’ fees. … Charter v.

Committee to Save Beverly Highlands Homes Ass'n v. Beverly Highlands Homes Ass'n

112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 732 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 2001

(Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 257, 265 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 328 ].) … People v.

Rancho Santa Margarita v. County of San Diego

135 Cal. App. 134 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 1933

This rule was again announced in Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 , and Hagenmeyer v. Board of Equaliza tion of Mendocino County, 82 Cal. 214 [ 23 Pac. 14, 16 ]. In People v. … Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, 4 Cal. Unrep. 222 [ 34 Pac. 437 ].)

Friedland v. Superior Court

67 Cal. App. 2d 619 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 1945

The complaint is similar to that filed in Jensky v. State Board of Equalization, ante, p. 612 [ 155 P.2d 87 ], just decided by this court. … (Drummey v. State Board of Funeral Directors, 13 Cal.2d 75 [ 87 P.2d 848 ]; Laisne v. California State Board of Optometry, 19 Cal.2d 831 [ 123 P.2d 457 ]; Dare v.

Cornell v. Harris

15 Cal. App. 2d 144 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1936

(See People v. McAleer, 33 Cal. App. 135 [ 164 Pac. 425 ]; Cronin v. Civil Service Commission, 71 Cal. App. 633 [ 236 Pac. 339 ] ; Fee v. Fitts, 108 Cal. App. 551 [ 291 Pac. 889 ]; Ey v. Fitts, 112 Cal. … (Sheehan v. Scott, 145 Cal. 684 [ 79 Pac. 350 ] ; Bakkenson v. Superior Court, 197 Cal. 504 [ 241 Pac. 874 ].) In Gibson v.

Sierra Watch v. County of Placer

California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 2021

Brown Act (Brown Act, Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.) — an act intended to 1 facilitate public participation in local government decisions. … (Badie v.

Vedanta Society of Southern California v. California Quartet Ltd.

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 889 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2000

Kleist v. … (City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 95 .)

Kruss v. Booth

185 Cal. App. 4th 699 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2010

Co. v. … Brown v.

In Re Marriage of Hasso

229 Cal. App. 3d 1174 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1991

Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 161, p. 171; see, e.g., Lee v. Brown (1976) 18 Cal.3d 110, 114 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 649 , 553 P.2d 1121 ]; Oliver v. Schene (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 473, 477 [6 *1180 Cal.Rptr. 461].) … (See Epstein v.

Chapman v. Tarentola

187 Cal. App. 2d 22 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1960

(Primm v. Primm, 46 Cal.2d 690, 696 [ 299 P.2d 231 ] ; Warner v. Warner, 34 Cal.2d 838, 839 [ 215 P.2d 20 ] ; Wilder v. Wilder, 214 Cal. 783, 785 [ 7 P.2d 1032 ] ; Brown v. … (Stewart v. Stewart, supra, 156 Cal. 651, 655 ; Brown v. Brown, supra, 162 Cal.App.2d 314, 319 ] ; Ojena v. Ojena, supra, 154 Cal.App.2d 440, 443 ; Ganann v. Ganann, supra, 109 Cal.App.2d 346, 351 .)

Union Trust Co. v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.

31 Cal. App. 64 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 1916

Our attention has not been called by the appellant to any case in this or other jurisdictions declaring a different rule to that invoked in the case of Brown v. … We think the foregoing embodies a correct statement of the principle declared in the case of Brown v. San Francisco Gaslight Co., 58 Cal. 426 , and that the cases of Murphy v. Crouse, 135 Cal. 14 , [ 87 Am. St.

Anderson v. Thacher

76 Cal. App. 2d 50 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 11, 1946

Brown in which Mr. Brown had said that Mr. Thacher and Mr. … Brown, Thacher “then took the Andersons in charge.”

Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp.

121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 532 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2002

Bell v. Shine, Browne & Diamond (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1019 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 717 ]; Trimble v. Steinfeldt, supra, 178 Cal.App.3d at p. 651.) … Bell v. Shine, Browne & Diamond, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1019-1020; Valenta v. Regents of University of California, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 1470 ; Hansen v.

Robinson & Wilson, Inc. v. Stone

35 Cal. App. 3d 396 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1973

(Genis v. Krasne, 47 Cal.2d 241, 246 [ 302 P.2d 289 ]; Arnold v. Browne, 27 Cal.App.3d 386, 398 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 775 ].) … Co. v. Brown, 247 Cal.App.2d 564 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 832 ], in support of their position that attorneys’ fees incurred in litigation are recoverable under the contract provision in question.

Preciado v. County of Ventura

143 Cal. App. 3d 783 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1982

(Jackson v. City of Sacramento (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 596, 601-602 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 826 ]; Summerford v. Board of Retirement (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 128, 131 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 814 ].) … (Summerford v. Board of Retirement, supra, 72 Cal.App.3d at p. 132 ; Flaherty v. Board of Retirement (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 397, 404 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 256 ].)

Ticor Title Insurance v. Rancho Santa Fe Ass'n

177 Cal. App. 3d 726 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1986

(Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County Dist. Council of Carpenters (1979) 25 Cal.3d 317, 330 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 370 , 599 P.2d 676 ]; White v. Dorfman, supra, 116 Cal.App.3d 892, 897 .) … They could have included additional language in paragraph 165 or an additional paragraph in article V, “Duration, Enforcement, Amendment,” stating the Covenant’s provisions could be changed or modified by the Board acting

Laurelle v. Bush

17 Cal. App. 409 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1911

(Barnes v. Miner, 122 Fed. 480, 487 .) … (Goytino v. McAleer, 4 Cal. App. 655 , [ 88 Pac. 992 ].)