Case law

Grumbach v. Lelande

154 Cal. 679 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1908

Rep. 93 , 41 Pac. 411 ]; White v. Bracelin, 144 Mich. 332 , [ 107 N. W. 1055 ]; Straus v. City of Galesburg, 203 Ill. 234 , [ 67 N. E. 836 ]; Shea v. City of Muncie, 148 Ind. 14 , [ 46 N. E. 138 ].) … (Mugler v. State of Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 , [8 Sup. Ct. 273]; Kidd v. Parson, 128 U. S. 1 , [9 Sup. Ct. 6]; Newson v. City of Galveston, 76 Tex. 559 , [ 13 S. W. 368 ]; Brown v. State, 82 Ga. 224 , [ 7 S.

People ex rel. San Francisco Gas Co. v. Board of Supervisors

1 Cal. Unrep. 68 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1858

This does not necessarily require of the board to allow the account.

Cates v. McNeil

169 Cal. 697 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1915

(Hall v. Center, 40 Cal. 63 .) … (Turner v. McCormick, 56 W. Va. 161 ; [ 107 Am. St. Rep. 904 , 67 L. R. A. 853, 49 S. E. 28 ]; Kreutzer v. Lynch, 122 Wis. 474 ; [ 100 N. W. 887 ]; Long v. Needham, 37 Mont. 408 ; [ 96 Pac. 731 ] ; Rankin v.

Estate of Tarrant

38 Cal. 2d 42 · California Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1951

BROWN, as Public Administrator, etc., et al., Respondents, v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al., Appellants. L. A. No. 21772. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. Nov. 16, 1951. Ernest A. … Com. v.

People ex rel. Dunham v. Board of Supervisors of Placer County

17 Cal. 411 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

The validity of the claim depends upon the construction and effect of two acts—a special act, passed in 1858 (Statutes 1858, 20) entitled An Act to separate the offices of County Recorder, County Auditor, Clerk of the Board … of Supervisors, and Clerk of the Board of Equalization, from the office of County Clerk in the county of Placer.

People ex rel. Whitney v. Board of Delegates of San Francisco Fire Department

14 Cal. 479 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

Church v. Hester, ( 6 Cal. 679 ,) that at common law, the province of this writ is more ample than under our statute, as it is not confined to mere questions of jurisdiction. … Bodine v. Goodwin, (1 Selden, 568.)

Berry v. Maywood Mutual Water Co. Number One

13 Cal. 2d 185 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1939

(Berry v. Maywood Mutual Water Co., 11 Cal. App. (2d) 479 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 1032 ].) … (Tierney & Lawford, Inc., v. Wilshire Cafe, Inc., 209 Cal. 605 [ 289 Pac. 621 ]; Brown v. Crown Cold Milling Co., 150 Cal. 376, 386 [ 89 Pac. 86 ] ; Scott v.

Dragna v. White

45 Cal. 2d 469 · California Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1955

(Hughes v. Oreb, 36 Cal.2d 854, 858 [ 228 P.2d 550 ] ; Kaufman v. Brown, 93 Cal.App.2d 508, 511-513 [ 209 P.2d 156 ] ; Collins v. … May Department Stores Co., 348 Mo. 696 [ 155 S.W.2d 74 , 137 A.L.R. 495 ] ; Brown v.

California School Employees Ass'n. v. Governing Board of the Marine Community College District

8 Cal. 4th 333 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1994

V. … The choice appears to be that of the governing board. (§ 88203.)

Moore v. Long Beach Development Co.

87 Cal. 483 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1891

But in Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221 , 52 Am. Dec. 303 , and in Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 600 , 91 Am. … They had no other place of residence, and for the time being this inn was to be such, subject, as to time of stay, to their volition, but at reduced rates of board by the month.

Thomason v. Carroll

132 Cal. 148 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1901

When the document was deposited with the clerk for filing or indorsement, it was, in contemplation of law, filed with the *152 board. (Tregambo v. Comanche etc. Co., 57 Cal. 501 .) In Rauer v. … (Janin v. *153 Browne, 59 Cal. 37 .) In the case here, the board received the protest on October 24th, and referred it to the street committee, and that committee acted upon it.

Bates v. Porter

74 Cal. 224 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1887

This act is referred to in the opinion in the case of Meyer v. Brown, 65 Cal. 583 , and some of the features of the organization of the city are there detailed. (See 65 Cal. 584 .) … This court so held in Meyer v. Brown, supra, and still adheres to that judgment. Much is said as to the expense of constructing the water-works, and that the city has been obliged to build a new water-works.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1245 v. City of Gridley

34 Cal. 3d 191 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1983

(See City of Hayward v. United Public Employees (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 761 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 710 ]; J. I. Case Co. v. Labor Board (1944) 321 U.S. 332, 337 [ 88 L.Ed. 762, 767 , 64 S.Ct. 576 ].) … The city also argues that since property rights are created by “existing rules and understandings” (Board of Regents v.

American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

13 Cal. 4th 1017 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1996

(Aylward v. State Board etc. Examiners (1948) 31 Cal.2d 833, 839 [ 192 P.2d 929 ].) … J., Baxter, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Hanton v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.

178 Cal. 616 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1918

Brown was called by plaintiff. … R. v. Gates, 135 Ill. App. 180 ; Peterson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 211 Mo. 498 , [ 111 S. W. 37 ]; Patterson v. Westchester Electric Ry. Co., 26 App. Div. 366 , [ 49 N. Y. Supp. 796 ]; Haralson v.

Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Los Angeles v. Board of Equalization of Los Angeles

97 Cal. 318 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1893

The cases of Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 194 , People v. Sacramento, 59 Cal. 321 , and People v. Dunn, 59 Cal. 328 , have no bearing upon this subject. … The board had no power to order a new assessment to be made without evidence. (San Francisco v. Flood, 64 Cal. 504 .)

Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Los Angeles v. Board of Equalization of Los Angeles

97 Cal. 318 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1893

The cases of Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 194 , People v. Sacramento, 59 Cal. 321 , and People v. Dunn, 59 Cal. 328 , have no bearing upon this subject. … The board had no power to order a new assessment to be made without evidence. (San Francisco v. Flood, 64 Cal. 504 .)

Collins v. Industrial Accident Commission

205 Cal. 727 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1928

The facts of the case appear from the findings of said Commission, as follows: Tom Collins was employed as a painter on the second day of July, 1926, at Sacramento, California, by defendants Brown and McGrew. … The rule is also announced in the recent case of London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 202 Cal. 239 [54 A. L.

People Ex Rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Seal Beach

36 Cal. 3d 591 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1984

It points out—correctly—that this issue was squarely decided in its favor in San Francisco Fire Fighters v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 96 Cal.App.3d 538. … In Baggett v.

Wilson v. Sharp

42 Cal. 2d 675 · California Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1954

Brown, 110 Cal.App.2d 764, 778-779 [ 243 P.2d 920 ].) … (See Boyne v. Ryan, 100 Cal. 265, 267 [ 34 P. 707 ]. Compare Board of Supervisors v.