Bloom v. City & County of San Francisco
3 P. 129, 64 Cal. 503, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 411
Opinion
—We think the city and county of San Francisco had such proprietorship of the city and county hospital as rendered it liable for damages in the case as presented in the transcript. We also think the claim of plaintiff was not a claim to be presented to the board of supervisors before an action could have been maintained.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bloom v. City & County of San Francisco, 3 P. 129, 64 Cal. 503, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 411 (Cal. 1884).
3 P. 129 (Bloom v. City & County of San Francisco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
City and County of Denver v. Madison
351 P.2d 826 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1960)
Vater v. County of Glenn
323 P.2d 85 (California Supreme Court, 1958)
Ambrosini v. Alisal Sanitary District
317 P.2d 33 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
Madison v. City & County of San Francisco
234 P.2d 995 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
Beard v. City & County of San Francisco
180 P.2d 744 (California Court of Appeal, 1947)
Sanders v. City of Long Beach
129 P.2d 511 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
Jardine v. City of Pasadena
248 P. 225 (California Supreme Court, 1926)
Davie v. Board of Regents, University of California
227 P. 243 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego
186 P. 345 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
Keyes v. City & County of San Francisco
173 P. 475 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Chafor v. City of Long Beach
163 P. 670 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Spangler v. City of San Francisco
23 P. 1091 (California Supreme Court, 1890)