Bloom v. City & County of San Francisco
SAMUEL BLOOM v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Pee (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Pee
Pee Curiam.
—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.
Cited by
- Vater v. County of Glenn Sac. 6826 · 1958-03-21
- Ambrosini v. Alisal Sanitary District Civ. 17706 · 1957-10-28
- Madison v. City & County of San Francisco Civ. 14410 · 1951-08-22
- Beard v. City & County of San Francisco Civ. 13297 · 1947-05-20
- Sanders v. City of Long Beach Civ. 13454 · 1942-10-01
- Jardine v. City of Pasadena Docket No. L.A. 8186. · 1926-07-01
- Davie v. Board of Regents, University of California Civ. No. 4536. · 1924-04-24
- Western Salt Co. v. City of San Diego L. A. No. 5252. · 1919-12-16
- Keyes v. City & County of San Francisco S. F. No. 7017. · 1918-01-25
- Chafor v. City of Long Beach L. A. No. 4100. · 1917-03-02
- Spangler v. City of San Francisco No. 11958 · 1890-05-03