Case law

Miller v. Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County

61 Cal. 2d 885 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1964

Although the instant matter comes to us on appeal rather than by original writ as in Henderson v. … Accordingly, should the board fail to discharge its duty to properly redistrict the county (see Griffin v. Board of Supervisors, 60 Cal.2d 318 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 101 , 384 P.2d 421 ], and Griffin v.

Western Lithograph Co. v. State Board of Equalization

11 Cal. 2d 777 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1938

The facts therefore are similar to the facts involved in the case of Western Lithograph Co. v. State Board of Equalization, S. F.

Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

29 Cal. 2d 560 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1947

said Superior Court upon, reversal of the judgment is hereby recalled and annulled, andl it is further ordered that the judgment of the Superior- Court in favor of plaintiff Richfield Oil Corporation, and against defendant Board

Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

29 Cal. 2d 560 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1947

said Superior Court upon, reversal of the judgment is hereby recalled and annulled, andl it is further ordered that the judgment of the Superior- Court in favor of plaintiff Richfield Oil Corporation, and against defendant Board

People ex rel. Jackson v. Board of Supervisors

47 Cal. 205 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

People ex rel. Macpherson v. Board of Supervisors

43 Cal. 91 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1872

On the filing of this report the County Clerk notified the Board of Supervisors of the fact that it had been so filed, and the Board thereafter, on the 11th of October, 1869, by its ordinance, duly passed for that purpose … the Board to cause the work of grading of these streets to be done, in accordance with the resolution and notice of February 23d, 1869, and the Board refusing to accede to the petition, he now makes application for the writ

March v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County

183 Cal. 756 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1920

Board of Trustees of State Library v. Kenfield

55 Cal. 488 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

Wo do not think that the transactions of the Board of Trustees are the basis of claims within the meaning of § 660, Political Code. … The chapter of the Political Code relating to the State Library, places the library under the control of the Board of Trustees, and authorizes the board “ to draw from the State treasury, at any time, all the moneys therein

March v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County

183 Cal. 756 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1920

People ex rel. Tallant v. Board of Supervisors

12 Cal. 300 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1859

The principles of this case have already been settled in the case of The People v. Bond, Assessor. … We have already held that the Board of Supervisors had no control over the Treasurer in respect to this matter.

Holbrook v. Board of Directors of Imperial Irrigation District

8 Cal. 2d 158 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1937

(Barry v. Board of Directors, 7 Cal. App. (2d) 412 [ 46 Pac. (2d) 298 ].) McIver and Barry have since continued to hold their respective offices and discharge the duties thereof. … (People v. Tilton, 37 Cal. 614 .) New terms of four years each commenced on the first Tuesday in March, 1935. (Secs. 19 and 20, Irrigation District Act, supra.) These new terms of office have not been changed. (Boyd v.

Santa Cruz Railroad v. Board of Supervisors

2 Cal. Unrep. 99 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1880

well known to the board and the plaintiff. … Dec. 681 ; Burnet v. Bisco, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 335. Both parties to a contract, resting on mutual promises, must be bound or neither is.

Morrow v. Board of Directors of Imperial Irrigation District

219 Cal. 246 · California Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1933

The answer sets up the proceeding this day determined (Box v. Young, ante, p. 243 [ 26 Pac. (2d) 290 ]). … At this point the above-mentioned proceeding was commenced (Box v.

Porco v. State Board of Barber Examiners

7 Cal. Unrep. 158 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1903

Proc., sec. 385; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “Abatement,” p. 6; Green v. Watkins, 6 Wheat. (19 U. S.) 261, 5 L. Ed. 256 ), and, with it, the judgment and this appeal. … Rep. 239 , 25 Pac. 405 ; Estate of Shaver, 131 Cal. 221 , 63 Pac. 340 ; Bienenfeld v. Fresno Milling Co., 82 Cal. 426 , 22 Pac. 1113 ), and we. so advise. We concur: Gray, C.; Haynes, C. PER CURIAM.

Haas v. County of San Bernardino

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 341 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 2002

The lower court in Brown, supra, 637 F.2d 272 , relying on Withrow v. … Brown v. Vance (5th Cir. 1981) 637 F.2d 272 ; Doss v. Long (N.D.Ga. 1985) 629 F.Supp. 127, 129 ; State ex rel. McLeod v. Crowe (1978) 272 S.C. 41 [ 249 S.E.2d 772, 776-777, 778 ]; State ex rel. Shrewsbury v.

Central Pacific Railroad v. Board of Equalization

1 Cal. Unrep. 460 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1869

Burney, 29 Cal. 459 ; Finch v. Tehama County, 29 Cal. 455 ; People v. Dwindle, 29 Cal. 683 ; People v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 101 . … Justice Baldwin in State of Rhode Island v. State of Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 718 [ 9 L.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

14 Cal. 4th 76 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1996

Subsequently, the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) awarded Lopez scheduled permanent partial disability indemnity of $9,020. … J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. All further statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise indicated.

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 528 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1998

Accordingly, the Board’s reliance on the report to deny reconsideration is unsupportable. D. Kerley v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 223 Kerley v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. All further statutory references are to this code.

Foodmaker, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

10 Cal. 3d 605 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1974

Petitioner seeks review of a decision of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (“board”), which affirmed a decision of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“department”) revoking liquor licenses which petitioner … The board held that it did not. Under sections 23002 and 23008, the word “person” includes a corporation “unless the context otherwise requires.”

Shirley v. Board of Trustees of Cottonwood School District

3 Cal. Unrep. 605 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1892

In People v. Romero, 18 Cal. 90 , the court, by Field, C. … This language was again quoted with approval in Oroville & V. R. Co. v. Plumas County, 37 Cal. 362 , and the same rule was declared in Price v. Land Co., 56 Cal. 434 .