90 F. 691 (9th Cir. 1898), 444, London & San Francisco Bank v. City of Oakland

This document cites

• Federal Cases - 27 F. 412 (D.Or. 1886), Coffin v. City of Portland
• Federal Cases - 86 F. 30 (N.D.Cal. 1898), 12,190, London & San Francisco Bank v. City of Oakland
• Federal Cases - 96 U.S. 716 (1878), Morgan v. Chicago & A.r. Co.
• Alabama - 14 So. 9 (Ala. 1893), Harn v. Common Council of Dadeville
• California - 107 Cal. 166, 15719, City of Eureka v. Fay



See all quotations

• California - 107 Cal. 402, 15742, Demartini v. City and County of San Francisco
• California - 14 Cal. 642, Harding & Loftin v. Jasper
• California - 22 Cal. 482, Hilborn v. Alford
• California - 35 Cal. 489, Stone v. Brooks
• California - 42 Cal. 541, 3,030, City of San Francisco v. Canavan
• California - 50 Cal. 265, 3142, Hoadley v. City and County of San Francisco
• California - 53 Cal. 437, 5739, People v. Pope
• California - 60 Cal. 497, 7,146, People ex rel. Harris v. Blake
• California - 65 Cal. 434, 9,441, Visalia v. Jacob
• California - 70 Cal. 454, 11300, Quinn v. Anderson
• California - 72 Cal. 170, 9399, Town of San Leandro v. Le Breton
• California - 81 Cal. 70, 11769, People v. Reed
• California - 82 Cal. 24, 13351, Phillips v. Day
• California - 83 Cal. 623, 12565, Eureka v. Armstrong
• California - 84 Cal. 634, 12726, People v. Hibernia Sav. &Amp; Loan Soc.
• California - 86 Cal. 405, 13728, Wolfskill v. County of Los Angeles
• California - 93 Cal. 43, 13040, Archer v. Salinas City
• California - 94 Cal. 131, 14492, Cerf v. Pfleging
• Iowa - 34 N.W. 197 (Iowa 1887), City of Waterloo v. Union Mill Co.
• Iowa - 60 N.W. 658 (Iowa 1894), Taraldson v. The Inc. Town of Lime Springs
• Indiana - 101 Ind. 200 (Ind. 1884), 11,599, City of Indianapolis v. Kingsbury
• Illinois - 9 N.E. 269 (Ill. 1886), Town of Lake View v. Lebahn
• Indiana - 43 N.E. 942 (Ind. 1896), 17,472, Rhodes v. Town of Brightwood
• Indiana - 46 N.E. 990 (Ind. 1897), 18,074, The Town of Woodruff Place v. Raschig
• Maryland - 33 A. 435 (Md. 1895), City of Baltimore v. Frick
• Maryland - 36 A. 1098 (Md. 1897), Flersheim v. City of Baltimore
• Minnesota - 21 Minn. 509 (Minn. 1875), Hanson v. Eastman
• Minnesota - 24 N.W. 917 (Minn. 1885), Hurley v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Company
• Minnesota - 63 N.W. 96 (Minn. 1895), 9172, Great Northern R. Co. v. City of St. Paul
• Missouri - 19 S.W. 735 (Mo. 1892), Heitz v. City of St. Louis