Case law

Los Angeles Teachers Union, Local 1021 v. Los Angeles City Board of Education

71 Cal. 2d 551 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1969

Collins, supra, 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 ] ; see also, Brown v. … Akin v. Riverside Unified School Dist. Board of Education, 262 Cal.App.2d 161, 168 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 557 ], with Finot 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.

Legislature v. Eu

54 Cal. 3d 492 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1991

Allen v. Board of Administration, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 119120.) … (See also Allen v. Board of Administration, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 119 .) In Lyon v.

People Ex Rel. Board of State Harbor Commissioners v. Southern Pacific Co.

177 Cal. 555 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1918

(People v. California Fish Co., 166 Cal. 576 , [ 138 Pac. 79 ]; People v. Southern Pacific Co., 166 Cal. 614 , [ 138 Pac. 94 ]; People v. … Southern Pacific Co., 166 Cal. 627 , [ 138 Pac. 103 ]; People v. *560 Banning Co., 166 Cal. 630 , [ 138 Pac. 100 ]; People v. Banning, Co., 166 Cal. 635 , [ 138 Pac. 101 ]; People v.

Consolidated Printing & Publishing Co. v. Allen

18 Cal. 2d 63 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1941

The cost of such publication, it is provided, shall not exceed the rate fixed by the board of supervisors for other county advertising. … (Pratt v. Browne, 135 Cal. [649] 650 [ 67 Pac. 1082 ].)” (See, also, Bloss v. Lewis, 109 *68 Cal. 493 [ 41 Pac. 1081 ]; Marsh v. Hanly, 111 Cal. 368 [ 43 Pac. 975 ]; Rauer v.

Stafford v. Martinoni

192 Cal. 724 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1923

Brown ran a hotel or boarding-house and also purchased and sold real estate. … (Fanning v. Green, 156 Cal. 279 [ 104 Pac. 308 ]; Holmes v. Holmes, 27 Cal. App. 546 [ 150 Pac. 793 ].)

In Re Dedman

17 Cal. 3d 229 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1976

Brown for Petitioner. Herbert M. Rosenthal for Respondent. OPINION THE COURT. … Rptr. 65 , 507 P.2d 593 ]), the recommendation of the board is given great weight. ( Schullman v. State Bar (1973) 10 Cal.3d 526, 540 [ 111 Cal.

San Leandro Teachers'association v. Governing Board of the San Leandro Unified School

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 528 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2007

68 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 (2007) 171 P.3d 545 SAN LEANDRO TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION v. GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN LEANDRO UNIFIED SCHOOL. No. S156961. Supreme Court of California. November 28, 2007. Petition for review granted.

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.

Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court

32 Cal. 3d 211 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1982

Facts The complaint of Johnnie Brown and Bennie Butler (both of whom are black) alleges as follows: Brown was hired by Commodore in June 1979 as a quality-control inspector. … Labor Board (1938) 305 U.S. 197, 235-236 [ 83 L.Ed. 126, 143 , 59 S.Ct. 206 ]; Van Hoomisen v.

Ex parte Thomas

71 Cal. 204 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1886

This case involves the constitutionality of section 14 of an ordinance passed by the board of supervisors of Alameda County. … (See also Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 425 ; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123 ; State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232 ; Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691 .)

Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Pacific Railway Co.

99 Cal. 407 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1893

In Rochat v. Gee, 91 Cal. 355 , we held that there could be no separate appeal from such an order when entered before final judgment. … And so in this case there can be no separate appeal unless the order in question is essentially different from the order made in Rochat v. Gee . !

Branch Tpk. Co. v. Bd. Supervisors Yuba Cty.

13 Cal. 190 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

Peralta Community College District v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

52 Cal. 3d 40 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1990

(See Rojo v. Kliger, post, at p. 82 & fn. 10 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 130 , 801 P.2d 373 ]; see Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 481 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 691 P.2d 272 ]; cf. Alcorn v. … (b); see, e.g., Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 477 ; Watson v. Department of Rehabilitation (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1271, 1277-1278 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 204 ]; Baker v.

Foster v. Bd. of Police Comm'rs

102 Cal. 483 · California Supreme Court · May 22, 1894

In Watson v. … In Ogden v.

Carson River Lumbering Co. v. Patterson

33 Cal. 334 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1867

It was further held in that case that the power to regulate commerce, whether foreign or domestic, is exclusive of the same power in the States, and not concurrent with it; and the same point was ruled in Brown v. … (Almy v. The State of California, 24 How. 174 ; Brumagim v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 266 .)

In re Butler

230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 736 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 2018

(Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 542.) … Second, the Board altered its treatment of certain elderly inmates to comply with a February 2014 federal court order. (See Plata v. Brown (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2014, No. 3:01-cv-01351-JST).)

County of Sacramento v. Southern Pacific Co.

127 Cal. 217 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1899

In Los Angeles v. … Indeed, the whole history of estoppel, as involved in this ease, is strongly and convincingly stated in Brown v.

Sunderlin v. State Bar

33 Cal. 2d 785 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1949

The final correspondence between Brown and. … On appeal from the trial court’s judgment in that action in favor of the Leonard estate, the District Court of Appeal held (Merchants Credit Assn. v.

Associated Constr. & Eng'g v. WORKERS'COMP. APP. BD.

22 Cal. 3d 829 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1978

v. … Much of the controversy centers on the effect of the amendments on the employer's lien and the rule of Brown . (See Van Nuis v. Los Angeles Soap Co. (1973) 36 Cal. App.3d 222 [ 111 Cal. Rptr. 398 ]; but see Marrujo v.