Case law

Wilson v. Fisher

148 Cal. 13 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1905

sitting as a canvassing board. … In Anderson v.

City of Pasadena v. Estrin

212 Cal. 231 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1931

(Reams v. Cooley, 171 Cal. 150 [Ann. Cas. 1917A, 1260, 152 Pac. 293 ], and cases therein cited.) … (Foxen v. City of Santa Barbara, 166 Cal. 77 [ 134 Pac. 1142 ].) The defendants rely upon the case of Brown v. Town of Sebastopol, 153 Cal. 704 [19 L. R. A. (N.

Dodge v. Meyer

61 Cal. 405 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1882

(Lincker v. Ayeshford, 1 Cal. 75 .) … The case of Green v.

Partridge v. Devoto

148 Cal. 167 · California Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1905

Supp. 179 ; Phillips v. Curley, 28 Colo. 34 , [ 62 Pac. 837 ].) … The courts have held that the names “National Democratic Party” (Craig v. Brown, 114 Cal. 480 , [ 46 Pac. 870 ]; In re Greene, [ 9 App. Div. 223 ], 41 N. Y. Supp. 179 ), “Silver Republican Party” (State v.

Los Angeles City & County Employees Union, Local 99 v. Los Angeles City Board of Education

12 Cal. 3d 851 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1974

wage” (Alameda County Employees’ Assn. v. … City *856 of Los Angeles, supra, 3 Cal.3d 252 , and Walker v.

Katzberg v. Regents of University of California

127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 482 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 2002

See Brown v. … Spackman v. Board of Educ.

McSherry v. Wood

102 Cal. 647 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1894

This the board had a right to do, and, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, the presumption will be indulged, that no sidewalks were laid except in front of the lots as shown in the assessment. Diggins v. … Brown, 76 Cal. 318 , and Gately v. Bateman, 7 Pac. Coast L. J., 364, cited by appellant in support of his contention, were decided under the act of 1872, and have no application under the act of 1885 as amended in 1889.

Feraut v. City of Sacramento

204 Cal. 687 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1928

There is no merit in this contention (Zahn v. Board of Public Works, supra; Brown v. City of Los Angeles, 183 Cal. 783 [ 192 Pac. 716 ]). … (Miller v. Board of Public Works, supra, p. 490.)

Serrano v. Priest

5 Cal. 3d 584 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1971

Brown v. Board of Education, supra, at 493.” (Id. at p. 221 [29 L.Ed.2d at p. 442], fn. 6.) … Relying on the quotation from Brown v.

People ex rel. Board of State Harbor Commissioners v. Central Wharf Joint Stock Co.

1 Cal. Unrep. 319 · California Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1866

Palos Verdes Faculty Ass'n v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District

21 Cal. 3d 650 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1978

Brown, Gerald A. Conradi and Brown & Conradi as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. Trygstad & Odell, Lawrence B. Trygstad and Richard J. Schwab for Plaintiffs and Respondents. … Board of Equal., supra, 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 ; Stafford v. L.A. etc.

Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

43 Cal. 3d 1379 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1987

Because economic standing is often strongly correlated with race, sex and other forms of prohibited discrimination (see Brown v. … (Commodore Home, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 220; see Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 486-487; Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 ]; cf. Alcorn v.

Geneva Towers Ltd. Partnership v. City & County of San Francisco

29 Cal. 4th 769 · California Supreme Court · Jan 9, 2003

In Cowgill v. … Health v.

Loustalot v. McKeel

157 Cal. 634 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1910

As said in the early case of Sneed v. … (Columbet v. Pacheco, 48 Cal. 395 ; Cooper v. Vierra, 59 Cal. 282 ; Johnson v. Brown, 63 Cal. 391 ; White v. Spreckels, 75 Cal. 610 , [ 17 Pac. 715 ]; Helm v. Wilson, 76 Cal. 476 , [ 18 Pac. 604 ]; Cavanaugh v.

Magee v. Bd. of Supervisors of Cty. of Calaveras

10 Cal. 376 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

In Hull v. Supervisors of Albany, ( 19 John., 259 ,) it was held that “ where an inferior tribunal has discretion, and proceeds to exercise it, this Court has no jurisdiction to control this discretion by mandamus.

Williams v. Los Angeles Ry. Co.

150 Cal. 592 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1907

The right to receive light from the space occupied by the street, and to the circulation of air therefrom (Brown v. Board, 124 Cal. 280 , [ 57 Pac. 82 ]; Townsend v. Epstein, 93 Md. 537 , [ 86 Am. St. … Bank v. Tyson, 133 Ala. 459 , [ 91 Am. St. Rep. 46 , 32 South. 144 ]; Dill v. Board, 47 N. J. Eq. 421, [ 20 Atl. 743 ] ; Hallock v. Scheyer, 33 Hun, 111 .)

Manjares v. Newton

64 Cal. 2d 365 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1966

In deter *371 mining whether an abuse of discretion has occurred, a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative board (Pitts v. … In Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, 493 [ 74 S.Ct. 686 , 98 L.Ed. 873 , 38 A.L.R.2d 1180 ], it was said: “Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.

Halo Sales Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco

6 Cal. 3d 164 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1971

In Brown v. … The Mayor, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 110 [ 19 L.Ed. 342 ]; Brown v.

Dreyfus v. State Bar

54 Cal. 2d 799 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1960

We have passed upon the weight as well as the sufficiency of the evidence, as we have the power and duty to do in this proceeding (Webb v. State Bar (1957), 47 Cal.2d 866, 868 [1] [ 306 P.2d 458 ] ; Browne v. … (Sturr v. State Bar (1959), 52 Cal.2d 125, 134 [6] [ 338 P.2d 897 ] ; see also Pearlin v. State Bar (1941), 18 Cal.2d 682, 684 [ 117 P.2d 341 ] ; Stanford v.

Anderson v. Anderson

214 Cal. 414 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1931

In the months of November and December, 1925, the mother had engaged in sexual intercourse with one Pete *416 Brown. … (Wright v. Hicks, 17 Ga. 160 [ 60 Am. Dec. 687 ].) "While it may be said that the authorities as to the degree of proof in such a case are in conflict (Jackson v. Thornton, 133 Tenn. 36 [ 179 S.