Case law

Johnson v. City of Loma Linda

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 316 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2000

For instance, in Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 485 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 691 P.2d 272 ], we described the FEHA as “a comprehensive scheme for combating employment discrimination.” … After the board upheld the disqualifications, the DFEH issued an accusation charging the board and the highway patrol with discrimination.

People v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.

219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 436 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2017

The Board was not aware that Sahlolbei was profiting from Barth‘s contract. … Brown White & Newhouse, Brown White & Osborn and Kenneth P. White for Real Party in Interest. Francisco J. Silva and Long X. Do for California Medical Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

In re Procedures for Considering Requests for Recommendations Concerning Applications for Pardon Or Commutation

233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 129 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 2018

In a small number of states, the Governor shares this power with a multimember pardon board whose members include high court justices. (See *131 Minn. Const., art. V, § 7 ; Nev. Const., art. V, § 14.) … (Pat) Brown pardoned Billings.

Unger v. Superior Court

37 Cal. 3d 612 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1984

Nelson (1971) 4 Cal.3d 716, 719-720 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 602 , 484 P.2d 578 ]; Board of Education v. … (Spelling v. Brown (1898) 122 Cal. 277, 279 [ 55 P. 126 ]; Hutchinson v. Brown (1898) 122 Cal. 139, 192-193 [ 54 P. 738 ].) In 1907, in Katz v.

Board of Education of the Round Valley Unified School District v. Round Valley Teachers Ass'n

13 Cal. 4th 269 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1996

(See Fontana Teachers Assn. v. Fontana Unified School Dist. (1990) 201 Cal.App.3d 1517 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 761 ] (Fontana); Grimsley v. Board of Trustees (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1440 [ 235 Cal.Rptr. 85 ] (Grimsley).) … (See, e.g., Labor Board v. *284 Borg-Warner Corp. (1958) 356 U.S. 342 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 823 , 78 S.Ct. 718 ].)

Smith v. Ferries & C. H. Railway Co.

5 Cal. Unrep. 889 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1897

Agricultural Works v. … In Barron v.

People ex rel. Board of State Harbor Commissioners v. Potrero & Bay View Railroad

67 Cal. 166 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1885

Co. v. Hall, 1 Otto, 350 .) … But this point is disposed of by the Supreme Court of the United States against the plaintiff in the recent case of Cardwell v. American River Bridge Co. 113 U.

People ex rel. Cochran v. Bd. of Educ. of Oakland

54 Cal. 375 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

Jones v. Perry, 59. *377 The rule so clearly laid down by the learned Justice we adopt as correct. … (People v. Bush, 40 Cal. 344 ; Spring Valley Water Works v. Bryant, 52 Cal. 132 ; The People v. Mayor, 2 Hill. 9; In the Matter of Mt. Morris Square, 2 Id. 14; In re Salinas County, 45 Mo. 52 ; People v.

Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court

23 Cal. 3d 55 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1978

In contrast the character of a public hearing may vaiy according to “the subject of the hearing, the nature of the board or person holding the hearing and nature of the board or person to be heard.” (Silver B. Co. v. … As we noted in Fire Fighters Union v.

Crane v. Reardon

217 Cal. 531 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1933

Plaintiff and her husband furnished board and lodging to him until his death on December 8, 1929. On December 1, 1929, be became ill, and on December 3d was confined to his bed. … A. 429]; Grimes v. Barndollar, 58 Colo. 421 [ 148 Pac. 256 ] ; Talbot v. Talbot, 32 R. I. 72 [ 78 Atl. 535 , Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1221]; Mechem, Gifts of Corporation Shares, 20 Ill. L. Rev. 9; 28 C. J. 700.)

Priet v. De La Montanya

3 Cal. Unrep. 122 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1889

Tibbey, the secretary of the board of commissioners. … Sureties on an official bond are liable only for a breach of official duty committed by their principal during the term of office for which the bond was given (People v. Aikenhead, 5 Cal. 106 ; Brown v.

Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 653 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 2000

But, in Brown v. … Although a landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Education was not singular. Both before and after, the United States Supreme Court was actively developing a “color-blind” jurisprudence. Hughes v.

People v. Hannon

19 Cal. 3d 588 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1977

In People v. … Norman (1975) 14 Cal.3d 929, 940-942 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 109 , 538 P.2d 237 ] (Clark, J., dis); Gee v. Brown (1975) 14 Cal.3d 571, 576-577 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 231 , 536 P.2d 1017 ] (Clark, J., dis.); People v.

Caldwell v. Montoya

10 Cal. 4th 972 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1995

v. … Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 829 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 679 , 843 P.2d 624 ], quoting Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 838 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 453 , 548 P.2d 1125 ], first brackets in Brown.)

People v. Ralph

24 Cal. 2d 575 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1944

(People v. Clough (1881), supra.) It may be noted that in People v. … Hamberg (1890), 84 Cal. 468, 475 [ 24 P. 298 ]; Lowrey v. Hogue (1890), 85 Cal. 600, 602 [ 24 P. 995 ]; People v. Brown (1896), 113 Cal. 35, 36 [ 45 P. 181 ]; Roberts v.

Moore v. Wood

26 Cal. 2d 621 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1945

(Estate of Platt, 21 Cal.2d 343, 352 [ 131 P.2d 825 ]; Moffatt v. Tight, 44 Cal.App.2d 643, 648 [ 112 P.2d 910 ]; Mitchel v. Brown, 43 Cal.App.2d 217, 222 [110 P.2d 456]Texas Co. v. … (Skookum, Oil Co. v. Thomas, 162 Cal. 539, 547 [ 123 P. 363 ]; Culley v. Cochran, 17 Cal.App.2d 498, 502 [ 62 P.2d 168 ].)

Bewley v. Franchise Tax Bd.

9 Cal. 4th 526 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1995

The dismissals and judgment were entered accordingly, and the Board appealed the judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed. Citing its previous decision in Brown v. … (Brown v. Franchise Tax Bd., supra, 197 Cal.App.3d 300, 305-306 .) 6 The Board opposed the motion; it did not itself move for summary judgment or summary adjudication.

Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Ass'n

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 237 · California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1999

(Rossi v. Brown *259 (1995) 9 Cal.4th 688, 694 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 363 , 889 P.2d 557 ]; Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816, 826 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 823 P.2d 1216 ]; Delaney v. … (Kaye v.

Societe Francaise De Bienfaisance Mutuelle De Los Angeles v. Flint

182 Cal. 159 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1920

The proposition is settled by the decision in Brown v. La Societe Francaise De Bienfaisance Mutuelle of San Francisco, 138 Cal. 475 , [ 71 Pac. 516 ]. … Soc. v. Fall River, 160 Mass. 409 , [ 36 N. E. 57 ]; Bolton v. Bolton, 73 Me. 303 ; Burke v. Roper, 79 Ala. 142 ; State Council etc. v. Board of Review, 198 Ill. 441 , [ 64 N. E. 1104 ] ; Newport v.

Wright v. Central California Colony Water Co.

67 Cal. 532 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1885

(Brown v. Pacific M. S. Co. 5 Blatchf. 525 ; Walker v. Deveraux, 4 Paige, 225 ; Webb v. Ridgely, 38 Md. 364 .) The abolition of the District Court did not destroy or affect the right to invalidate a voidable election. … In that way a minority of the stockholders would be enabled to secure representation upon the board of directors by electing one or more of the directors.