Case law

Brodrick v. Brown

69 F. 497 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · Jul 22, 1895

Sims v. Bond, 5 Barn. & Adol. 392. … Pott v. Clegg, 16 Mees. & W. 327.”

Brown v. Drain

112 F. 582 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · Dec 30, 1901

In Warren v. … Townsend, 57 Cal. 515 ; Harney v. Heller, 47 Cal. 15 ; Williams v. Bergin, 116 Cal. 56 , 47 Pac. 877 ; Edwards v. Berlin, 123 Cal. 544 , 56 Pac. 432 ; King v. Lamb, 117 Cal. 401 , 49 Pac. 561 ; Bolton v.

Broderick v. Brown

68 F. 346 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · May 13, 1895

Fraser v. Thrift, 50 Cal. 476 .

Humphrey v. Brown

89 F. 640 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · Sep 19, 1898

Reed v. Clark, 47 Cal. 194, 204 ; Olson v. Solverson, 71 Wis. 663, 667 , 38 N. W. 329 ; McPherson v. Ryan, 59 Mich. 33, 41 , 26 *641 N. W. 321 ; Hunter v. Hatfield, 68 Ind. 416, 422 ; Douglas v. … Stratton v. Dole, 45 Neb. 472 , 63 N. W. 875 ; Chellis v. Chapman, 125 N. Y. 215 , 219, 26 N. E. 308 ; Dent v. Pickens, 34 W. Va. 211 , 12 S. E. 698 . The case of Kniffen v. McConnell, 30 N.

Southern Pac. R. v. Brown

68 F. 333 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · May 13, 1895

Doolan v. Carr, 125 U. S. 632 , 8 Sup. Ct. 1228. In the case of U. S. v. McLaughlin, 127 U. S. 428 , 8 Sup. … Ct. 1177) that “the reasoning of the court in Newhall v.

Board of Education v. Alliance Assur. Co.

159 F. 994 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · Feb 3, 1908

In Insurance Company v. Bailey (Ky.) 78 S. … In Cullen v.

Spoor v. Board of Sup'rs

110 F. 1008 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · Aug 26, 1901

This is a similar suit to that just disposed of (Town Co. v. Jasper [C. C.

Southern Pac. Co. v. Board of Railroad Com'rs

78 F. 236 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · Nov 30, 1896

In Reagan v. … Co. v. U. S.

Ralph Brown Co. v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Soc.

180 F. 933 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · Jun 27, 1910

People ex rel. Brady v. Brown's Valley Irr. Dist.

119 F. 535 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · Nov 3, 1902

of supervisors ; the order of the board of supervisors declaring the territory duly organized as an irrigation district under the name of “Brown’s Valley Irrigation District”; and the recording in the office of the county … Besides, the Wright act has been declared constitutional by the supreme court of this state in Irrigation Dist. v. Williams, 76 Cal. 360 , 18 Pac. 379 ; Irrigation Dist. v. De Lappe, 79 Cal. 351 , 21 Pac. 825 ; Board v.

Southern Pac. Co. v. Board of Railroad Com'rs

87 F. 21 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · Apr 25, 1898

Tbe exceptions of the complainant refer mainly to the allegations contained in the answer respecting the valuations placed upon the railroad property returned to the board of equalization. … The court will consider what the board did, but not what it or its members intended or threatened to do in the future.

Spoor v. Board of Sup'rs of Riverside County

113 F. 26 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · Jan 6, 1902

notice of the decision may be given, it would be very clear that actual notice thereof by the solicitor for the party in whose favor the decree was rendered would be, as held by the supreme court of California in Mullally v.

Continental Ins. v. Board of Fire Underwriters of the Pacific

67 F. 310 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · Mar 25, 1895

Co. v. … State v.

Bear Valley Land & Water Co. v. Savings & Trust Co.

117 F. 941 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · Jul 21, 1902

board of directors of your orator, and that the other members of the said board were guided and controlled by the said Brown; that the said Brown was one of the incorporators and the moving spirit in the Bear Valley Irrigation … Brown was a member of the board of directors of the corporation Bear Valley Land and Water Company, your orator; that on the said 17th day of December, 1890, the said Brown had under consideration the project of acquiring

Southern Pac. Co. v. Board of Railroad Com'rs

71 F. 437 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · Dec 10, 1895

S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 98 U. S. 619 , Justice Miller, speaking for the court, said: “Railroad Co. v. … In the Texas case (Reagan v. Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362 , 14 Sup.

Southern Pac. Co. v. Board of R. R. Com'rs

95 F. 572 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · Jul 7, 1899

charges upon the lines of the Southern Pacific Railroad, and that effective action of the board was not taken until September 17, 1895, when a schedule of rates was adopted by the board, and that what the board did on the … Co. v.

Riverside & A. Ry. Co. v. City of Riverside

118 F. 736 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · Nov 1, 1902

Brown v. Board, 103 Cal. 531 , 37 Pac. 503 . … . *745 The rule stated in Brown v.

In re Southern Pac. Co.

82 F. 311 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · Aug 16, 1897

The board of United States general appraisers overruled the protests of the importer, and found that the merchandise in question— “Is a liquid substance, of a dark-brown color and tarry odor, of the specific gravity of 1.05028 … Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. 609 , 7 Sup. Ct. 1240; Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U. S. 468 , 12 Sup. Ct. 55.

De Estrada v. San Felipe Land & Water Co.

46 F. 280 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · May 11, 1891

Norris v. Haggin, 136 U. S. 386 , 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 942. … Smith v. Clay, 3 Brown Ch. 639, note. This doctrine has been repeatedly recognized and acted on by the supreme court. Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S. 377 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 610, and cases there cited.

San Joaquin & King's River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Stanislaus County

90 F. 516 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · May 25, 1898

Board of Sup'rs of San Francisco, 61 Cal. 3 ; Price v. Irrigating Co., 56 Cal. 431 ; Ditch Co. v. Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 577 ; Civ. Code Cal. § 1410 et seq.; Act March 12, 1885 (St. Cal. 1885, p. 95). … In Smyth v.