City and County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643, 673 [117 Cal.Rptr. 269, 41 P.3d 87] (San Remo).) In County of Sono-ma v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 322 [93 Cal.Rptr.3d 39], the real party in interest insisted, as the City does here, that the court was required to “deny the … petition unless no set of circumstances exists
Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1264 (1992). The mutual intention of the parties is determined by examining factors including the words used in the agreement, the surrounding circumstances under which the parties negotiated or entered into the contract, and the subsequent conduct of the parties. See Morey v.
Filed 8/12/04 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA BILL LOCKYER, as Attorney General, etc., ) Petitioner, S122923 v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al.,With the exception of the court’s reported (and apparently brief) stay at the “Montgomery Block” in 1878, all subsequent San Francisco locations of the court described herein through 923 have been confirmed in the relevant San Francisco City Directories. [17] De Witt v. San Francisco (1852) 2 Cal. 289.
Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco et al, No. 3:2021cv04144 - Document 51 (N.D. Cal. 2022) case opinion from the Northern District of California US Federal District Court. ZQhx.