McDonald v. Taylor
Citations
- 89 Cal. 42
- 1891 WL 3
Syllabus
<p>Swamp and Overflowed Lands—Fitness for Cultivation — Rights of Actual Settlers — Constitutional Law.— Swamp and overflowed lands granted to the state by the act of Congress of September 28, 1850, which are ready for occupation, and which by ordinary farming processes are fit for agricultural purposes, are within the meaning of section 7, article 17, of the constitution, and can be sold only to actual settlers, and in quantities not exceeding 320 acres.</p> <p>Id. —Evidence of Actual Settlement.—Evidence tending to prove that an applicant for the purchase of swamp-land determined to settle on the land at the time he examined the boundaries thereof, and then intended to proceed immediately to build a cabin, and to complete it within a reasonable time, and that be commenced to build the cabin as soon as he could get the lumber, and actually completed it within a week after his application, is sufficient to justify a finding that he settled on the land at the time of his application for its purchase.</p> <p>Appeal'—Review of Findings—Error against Party not Appealing.— The fact that a finding is insufficient as against one of the defeated parties to an action who has not appealed from the judgment, and between whom and the appellant there is no privity, cannot avail the appellant.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that evidence such as a defendant’s frequent contact with members of a 25 gang was sufficient to show that the defendant was “associated with” the gang
- concluding that evidence of defendant’s participation in gang activities was directly relevant to an element of Street Gang Act counts and did not constitute improper character evidence
- noting that the language of subsection (m) “indicat[es] the General Assembly’s intent to impose separate punishment for conduct that violates both OCGA § 16-15-4 and another felony statute”
- noting that the language of subsection (m) “indicat[es] the General Assembly’s intent to impose separate punishment for conduct that violates both OCGA § 16-15-4 and another felony statute”
- noting that “evidence of [the defendant’s] prior participation in gang activities was directly relevant to an element of the State’s case [regarding a charged Gang Act violation] and did not constitute improper character evidence when admitted for that limited purpose”
- rejecting ineffectiveness claim based on failure to file a motion to sever where trial counsel was not questioned as to why he did not file the motion
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Vanclief
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.