Case law

Santa Cruz Gap Turnpike Joint Stock Co. v. Board of Supervisors

62 Cal. 40 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1882

In case any Court, Judge, or other officer, or any board or other tribunal, in the discharge of duties of a public character, be named in the application as respondent, the affidavit or petition shall also disclose the name … (Winter v. Fitzpatrick, 35 Cal. 269 .)

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 .)

Bagley v. City of Manhattan Beach

18 Cal. 3d 22 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1976

Geiger v. Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal.2d 832, 838 [ 313 P.2d 545 ]), the city council may not delegate its power and duty to fix compensation. … The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov.

Andrews v. Pratt

44 Cal. 309 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

(Central Pacific Railroad v. The Board of Equalization of Placer Co., 43 Cal., 365 .) The allowance of claims against the county is peculiarly within the province of the Board of Supervisors. … (Ward v. The Duke of Northumberland, 2 Ans. 469; Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Cowen, 682; Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 139 .) We think that the judgment of the Court below should be affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Pacific Railway Co.

117 Cal. 332 · California Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1897

Bank v. Pacific *336 Ry. … Co. v. Toledo etc. R. R. Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 759; Leo v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 273; Nelson v.

Ridge v. State Bar

47 Cal. 3d 952 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1989

This is a proceeding to review the recommendation of the Review Department of the State Bar Court that petitioner Samuel Brown Ridge be suspended from the practice of law for three years, that the order of suspension be stayed … This is particularly appropriate when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel have disagreed, 5 and the review board itself was divided.

In Re Marriage of Gillmore

29 Cal. 3d 418 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1981

Board of Administration, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 46.) … (In re Marriage of Fithian, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 596, fn. 2 ; Brown, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 842; Smith v.

Stanson v. Mott

17 Cal. 3d 206 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1976

Brown (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 812 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 862 ], decided during the pendency of the instant appeal. In Stanson v. … Funds v. Board of Education, supra, 98 A.2d 673, 677 ; Stern v.

Santa Clara Valley Mill & Lumber Co. v. Board of Supervisors

71 Cal. 268 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1886

(Riddell v. Harrell, No. 11363, ante, p. 254.) Judgment affirmed.

Caminetti v. Board of Trustees of Jackson Union High School District

1 Cal. 2d 354 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1934

App. 141 [218 Pac. 296]; Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554 [ 74 Pac. 44 ].) … The propriety of the remedy of mandate against a school board to collect salary due a teacher is established by several cases. (See Ross v. Board of Education, 18 Cal. App. 222 [ 122 Pac. 967 ].)

Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School District

129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 811 · California Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2003

I join in Justice Brown’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to explain further my reasons for my dissent. … (Dis. opn. of Brown, I., post, at pp. 929, 931.)

IT Corp. v. County of Imperial

35 Cal. 3d 63 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1983

Committee v. Brown (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 879, 889 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 915 ]; People v. Gordon (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 711, 723 [ 234 P.2d 287 ]; Remillard Brick Co. v. Dandini (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 63, 68 [ 117 P.2d 432 ].) … Committee v. Brown (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 879 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 915 ].)

Wheeler v. Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System

25 Cal. 3d 600 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1979

(Phillipson v. Board of Administration (1970) 3 Cal.3d 32, 49 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 61 , 473 P.2d 765 ].) … (id., at p. 820; see Crumpler v. Board of Administration (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 567, 578 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 293 ].)

Regents of University of California v. Superior Court

85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 257 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1999

(E.g., Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 931 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 440 , 873 P.2d 613 ; Sanchez v. … pp. 100-102, 214 Cal.Rptr. 561 [serial telephone conversations among board members constituted a "meeting" and violated Brown Act]; Rowen v.

Runyon v. Board of Trustees of California State University

48 Cal. 4th 760 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 2010

We hold CSU employees, like employees of state boards and agencies (see State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. … In Miklosy v.

Arenson v. National Automobile & Casualty Insurance

48 Cal. 2d 528 · California Supreme Court · May 10, 1957

Co. v. Heiden (1931) 184 Ark. 291 [ 42 *538 S.W.2d 392, 394 ] ; Southern Ry. News Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (1904), 26 Ky.L.Rep. 1217 [ 83 S.W. 620 , 622] ; Carthage Stone Co. v. Travelers’ Ins. … As declared in Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters (1946), 29 Cal.2d 34, 46 [14] [ 172 P.2d 867 ], “ [T]he wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created.”

San Francisco Unified School District v. Johnson

3 Cal. 3d 937 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1971

(Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado (D.Colo. 1970) 313 F.Supp. 61, 82 .) In Brown v. … (See Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, 493 [ 98 L.Ed. 873, 880 , 74 S.Ct. 686 , 38 A.L.R.2d 1180 ].)

Blochman v. Spreckels

135 Cal. 662 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1902

The reasoning in Brown v. Jenks, 98 Cal. 10 , and Alameda Macadamizing Co. v. Pringle, 130 Cal. 226 , 1 seems to apply with equal force here. … It was said in Brown v. Jenks, 98 Cal. 10 : “Officers are provided and vested with the power and charged with the duty of seeing that such work is properly done.

Mcconoughey v. Jackson

101 Cal. 265 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1894

(Jersey City v. State, 30 N. J. L. 521.) So in Estey v. … In Brown v. Winterport, 79 Me. 305 , it was held that a vote ratifying a contract made by town officers without due authority could not be rescinded so as to affect the validity of the contract.

Colnon v. Orr

71 Cal. 43 · California Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1886

Jones with the board of directors of the Stockton Insane Asylum, in which the character and conduct of one W. T. Browne, the medical superintendent of the asylum, was assailed. … It is not every written charge made to a board of supervisors, a board of directors, or trustees of a college or other state institution, which, upon being filed in the office of their secretary or treasurer, or custodian