Case law

Browne v. State Bar

45 Cal. 2d 165 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1955

. — Petitioner, Lionel Browne, seeks a review of disciplinary proceedings in which the Board of Governors of The State Bar recommended that he be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of three years. … As we said in Egan v.

County of San Diego v. McClurken

37 Cal. 2d 683 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1951

Murphy; Town of Marblehead v. Rosenthal; Town of Burlington v. Dunn; Austin v. Older; Women’s Christian Ass’n. of Kansas City v. Brown; In re Botz; Home Fuel Oil Co. v. Glen Rock; DeVito v. Pearsall; Pisicchio v. … Bean; In re Botz; Women’s Christian Ass’n. of Kansas City v.. Brown; Appeal of Yocom; supra, note 1.)

Bedell v. Scott

126 Cal. 675 · California Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1899

(Johnson v. Eureka County, 13 Nev. 28 ; Rosenthal v. Madison R. R. Co., 10 Ind. 359 ; Wightman v. Karsner, 20 Ala. 446 ; Plummer v. Waterville, 32 Me. 5C6; Armija v. Commissioners of Bernalillo Co., 3 N. … Mex. 297; People v. Brown, 33 Colo. 425 .)

Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

2 Cal. 3d 81 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1970

This is also a companion case to Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (Talcott) ante, page 56 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 140 , 465 P.2d 28 ]. … This case is factually similar to Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Ferguson) (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 55 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 646 ], and State of California v. Ind. Acc. Com.

California Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School District

14 Cal. 4th 627 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1997

(Shoemaker v. … (See Clausing v.

Eades v. Trowbridge

143 Cal. 25 · California Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1904

The rule is well stated and fully discussed in Townley v. Adams, 118 Cal. 382 , which was approved and followed in Mizener v. Bradbury, 128 Cal. 340 . … In Irwin v.

Western Lithograph Co. v. State Board of Equalization

11 Cal. 2d 776 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1938

The facts herein are similar to those stated in the opinion this day filed in the case of Western Lithograph Co. v. State Board of Equalization, S. F.

People v. Jenkins

17 Cal. 500 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

The point that an administrator on Brown’s estate should have been appointed and joined as defendant, is answered by the statute which makes official bonds joint and several. 3. … The mere passiveness of the Board of Supervisors, in not bringing Brown (the principal) to a settlement, does not discharge him or his sureties. Judgment affirmed.

Culligan Water Conditioning of Bellflower, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

17 Cal. 3d 86 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1976

As stated in Entremont v. … (Albers v. State Board of Equalization (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 494, 497 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 69 ].)

City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University

46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 355 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 2006

(a)(4)(B), citing Dolan v. … (No Oil, Inc. v.

Guardianship of Brown

16 Cal. 3d 326 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1976

(Edgar v. Hitch (1956) 46 Cal.2d 309, 312 [ 294 P.2d 3 ]; De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 873 [ 250 P.2d 598 ]; James v. Haley (1931) 212 Cal. 142, 147 [ 297 P. 920 ]; 4 Witkin, Cal. … (Hemmerling v. Tomlev, Inc. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 572, 576 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 432 P.2d 697 ]; Branche v. Hetzel (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 801, 810 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 188 ]; San Jose etc. Title Ins. Co. v.

Pixley v. The Western Pac. R.R.

33 Cal. 183 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1867

(Browne on Statute of Frauds, Sec. 117; Lockwood v. Barnes, 3 Hill, 130 .) … (Souch v. Strawbridge, 2 Com. Bench, 813, 814; Burlingame v. Burlingame, 7 Cow. 94 ; King v. Brown, 2 Hill, 485 ; Browne on Stat. of Frauds, Sec. 118.)

People ex rel. County of Contra Costa v. Board of Supervisors

26 Cal. 641 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1864

It may say what amount shall be paid by one district, and what amount by another. *649 In the case of The Town of Guilford v. … (See also Blanding v.

State Board of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners, Inc.

40 Cal. 2d 436 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1953

Florida Dry Cleaning Board, supra; People v. Barksdale, 104 Colo. 1 [ 87 P.2d 755 ] ; State Dry Cleaners' Board v. Compton, 201 Okla. 284 [ 205 P.2d 286 ] ; Arnold v. … (See, also, Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 352 [ 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 ] [upholding the statute involved in Agricultural Prorate Com. v. Superior Court, supra] ; Currin v.

People ex rel. Ferguson v. Board of Supervisors of San Francisco

36 Cal. 595 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1869

The Board of Supervisors of Lake County, 33 Cal. 487 . (See, also, The People v. Board of Supervisors of San Joaquin County, 28 Cal. 229 ; French v. Teschemacher, 24 Cal. 518; People v. … Coon et al., 25 Cal. 641 ; People v. Board *605 of Supervisors, etc., 21 Cal. 668 ; People v. Common Council of Brooklyn, 22 Barb. 412 .)

City of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles

9 Cal. 2d 624 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1937

(Metropolitan Railroad Co. v. District of Columbia, 132 U. S. 1 [10 Sup. Ct. 19, 33 L. Ed. 231 ]; Brown v. Board of Education, 148 Okl. 97 [ 298 Pac. 249 ]; City of Centerville v. Turner County, 25 S. D. 300 [ 126 N. … No. 34, 156 Okl. 5 [ 9 Pac. (2d) 771 ], it was said, quoting from the syllabus in Brown v.

Citizens Task Force on Sohio v. Board of Harbor Commissioners

23 Cal. 3d 812 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1979

Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Education

32 Cal. 3d 779 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1982

(Carmel Valley View, Ltd. v. Board of Supervisors (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 817, 823 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 249 ].) … The State Board also relies on Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v.

City of Santa Ana v. Brunner

132 Cal. 234 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1901

Waiving the question whether this fact is any defense where the act of the board, as here, was legislative and political, and not judicial (Brown v. … (See Brown v. Supervisors, supra.) We cannot discover that appellant was in- any wise injured by the order of the court.

Civil Service Assn. v. City & County of San Francisco

22 Cal. 3d 552 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1978

(Compare Patton v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d 536, 541 .) This expectancy is entitled to some modicum of due process protection. (Perry v. … (See Codd v. Velger (1977) 429 U.S. 624 [ 51 L.Ed.2d 92 , 97 S.Ct. 882 ]; Board of Regents v.