Case law

Burns v. State Bar

45 Cal. 2d 296 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1955

While I agree with the majority that the evidence is sufficient to support the findings of the local administrative committee and the Board of Governors that petitioner was *304 guilty of unprofessional conduct in his dealings … should be imposed upon a member of the bar who is guilty of unprofessional conduct (Browne v.

Ashley v. Vischer

24 Cal. 322 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

In the case of Sannickson v. … Brown, 5 Cal. 57 , a number of accounts for labor and services, and for goods and materials furnished for the use of defendants, under the name of the “ Laura Virginia Association,” had been presented to the Board of Trustees

Warden v. State Bar of California

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 283 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1999

At the time Cooper v. Bray, supra, 21 Cal.3d 841 , and similar cases (see, e.g., Newland v. Board of Governors, supra, 19 Cal.3d 705, 711 ; Brown v. … (See also Board of Supervisors v.

People v. William G.

40 Cal. 3d 550 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1985

(Board of Education v. Barnette, supra, 319 U.S. at p. 637 [87 L.Ed. at p. 1637].) … (See Bilbrey v. Brown (9th Cir. 1984) 738 F.2d 1462, 1466 ; see also Comment, supra, 16 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 709, 723.)

Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

12 Cal. 4th 1143 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1996

(Braunfeld v. Brown, supra, 366 U.S. 599 .) … Review Board); Sherbert v.

City & County of San Francisco v. Boyd

17 Cal. 2d 606 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1941

The case of Mobley v. Board of Public Works, 44 Cal. App. 167 [ 186 Pac. 412 ], offers no obstacle. … Boyle, as Auditor of Said City, 195 Cal. 426 [ 233 Pac. 965 ]; Mahoney v. City and County of San Francisco, 201 Cal. 248 [ 257 Pac. 49 ]; Browne v. City of Boston, 179 Mass. 321 [ 60 N. E. 934 ]), do not apply.

People v. Myers

43 Cal. 3d 250 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1987

In People v. … In People v.

Bennett v. Bennett

219 Cal. 153 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1933

(Everett v. Everett, 52 Cal. 383; Ex parte Spencer, 83 Cal. 460 [ 23 Pac. 395 , 17 Am. St. Rep. 266 ]; Lampson v. Lampson, 171 Cal. 332 [ 153 Pac. 238 ]; In re McKenna, 116 Cal. App. 232 [2 Pac. (2d) 429]; Johnson v. … (Parker v. Parker, 55 Cal. App. 458 [ 203 Pac. 420 ]; Johnson v. Johnson, supra.)

McKinnon v. Leonard

118 Cal. 302 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1897

primary elections is not to be set in operation until the month of January, 1898, when, under section 5, the election commissioners are to select the names of those electors who are..to act as officers of the primary election boards

Thurmond v. Superior Court

66 Cal. 2d 836 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1967

Union v. … Underwriters v.

Jennings v. Bank of California

5 L.R.A. 233 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1889

“Thomas Brown, Cashier. “William Alvord, President.” … In Waln v.

County of Imperial v. McDougal

19 Cal. 3d 505 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1977

Such permits run with the land (Cohn v. County Board of Supervisors (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 180, 184 [ 286 P.2d 836 ]), and McDougal succeeded to any benefits which Simpson enjoyed under the permit issued to him. … Corp. v. Indus. Acc. Com. (1918) 177 Cal. 767, 771 [ 171 P. 935 ]; Prince v. Hill (1915) 170 Cal. 192, 195 [ 149 P. 587 ]; People ex rel. Dept, of Public Works v.

Hindman v. Owl Drug Co.

1 Cal. 2d 142 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1934

It appears from the certificate of the clerk of the court in which the action was prosecuted that notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the intervener, Florence Brown, was filed November 7, 1932. … —A rehearing was granted by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindman v. Owl Drug Co. (L. A. No. 14375) on July 26, 1934.

Meyer v. Porter

65 Cal. 67 · California Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1884

(Meyer v. Brown, 12 Pac. C. L. J. 153.) … Nor was it necessary that the coupons should have been presented to the board of trustees and auditor for examination and audit, as ordinary accounts of claims against the city, under the provisions of sections 2, 5, 8, 9

Hill v. Bd. of Supervisors of Ventura Cty.

95 Cal. 239 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1892

such power is vested in the board. … In Humboldt County v. Dinsmore, 75 Cal. 604 , these acts seem to have been held to indicate that the bond was approved.

Smith v. Industrial Accident Commission

18 Cal. 2d 843 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1941

(Lynch v. City of New York, supra; see also: Wilson Berger Coal Co. v. Brown, 223 Ky. 183 [ 3 S. W. (2d) 199 ].) There is nothing in the case of London etc. Co. v. Industrial Acc. … (See Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Industrial Accident Com., 18 Cal. (2d) 40 [ 112 Pac. (2d) 615 ].) That petitioner boarded a moving truck and jumped from it while it was moving is not significant.

County of Sacramento v. Hickman

66 Cal. 2d 841 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1967

(See, e.g., May v. Board of Directors (1949) 34 Cal.2d 125, 128-129 [ 208 P.2d 661 ]; McAlpine v. Baumgartner (1937) 10 Cal.2d 409, 413-414 [ 74 P.2d 753 ].) … (Silver v. Brown (1966) 63 Cal.2d 841, 845 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 409 P.2d 689 ], and cases cited.) It is noteworthy that the report was prepared and signed by Bay L.

Cottle v. Spitzer

65 Cal. 456 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1884

(Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 444 ; 24 How. 123 ; 15 Pa. St. 353.) … This was expressly so decided in Wells, Fargo & Co. v. The State Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 197 , and is the course certain to be pursued.

Albonico v. Madera Irrigation District

47 Cal. 2d 695 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1957

Dist. v. All Persons, ante, p. 681 [ 306 P.2d 886 ]. … Dist. v. All Parties, ante, p. 597 [ 306 P.2d 824 ], and in Madera Irr. Dist. v.

Hindman v. Owl Drug Co.

1 Cal. 2d 142 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1934

It appears from the certificate of the clerk of the court in which the action was prosecuted that notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the intervener, Florence Brown, was filed November 7, 1932. … —A rehearing was granted by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindman v. Owl Drug Co. (L. A. No. 14375) on July 26, 1934.