Case law

Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 225 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 2004

(See Board of Education v. … Akron Board of Ed. v. State Board of Ed. of Ohio, supra, 490 F.2d at p. 1296 (cone. & dis. opn. of Pratt, J., citing Smith).)

East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Appellate Department

23 Cal. 3d 839 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1979

(Knoll v. … (See American Party of Texas v. White (1974) 415 U.S. 767 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 744 , 94 S.Ct. 1296 ]; Storer v. Brown (1974) 415 U.S. 724 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 714 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 ]; Lubin v.

In Re Marriage of Lehman

74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 825 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1998

In Olivo v. … Although the law of New York is that of equitable distribution and not community property, it has developed in accord with Brown. (See Majauskas v.

Lower Tule River Ditch Co. v. Angiola Water Co.

149 Cal. 496 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1906

Porter, 42 Or. 56 , [ 70 Pac. 822 ]; Richardson v. Kier, 37 Cal. 263 .) For the samé reasons it is unnecessary that there should be any headgate of boards or masonry at the place of diversion. … Burrows, 82 Cal. 564 , [ 23 Pac. 146 ]; Taylor v. Abbott, 103 Cal. 423 , [ 37 Pac. 401 ]; McGuire v. Brown, 106 Cal. 672 , [ 39 Pac. 1060 ]; Cardoza v. Calkins, 117 Cal. 112 , [ 48 Pac. 1010 ]; McDonald v.

Robinson v. Bd. of Supervisors of Sacramento

16 Cal. 208 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

(Elemendorf v. The Mayor of New York, 25 Wend. 693 ; Le Roy v. The same defendants, 20 John. 430 .) … This act is an enabling statute, creating a Board with special powers and jurisdiction, and the Board has only the power shown to be conferred by the act. The case of the People ex rel. v.

Nolan v. City of Anaheim

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 857 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 2004

(See, e.g., Barber v. Retirement Board (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 273 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 657 ] (Barber); Craver v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 76 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 534 ] (Craver); O’Toole v. … (See Pearl v. Workers’ Comp.

Fox v. Bd. of Supervisors of San Mateo Cty.

49 Cal. 563 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

The authority of the Board in the premises must be, of course, measured by the statute, for that alone confers it and prescribes the mode in which it is to be exercised. (Pol. Code, Sec. 3976, et seq.) … The petition presented to the Board must be that petition which was signed by the petitioners. Both signature and presentation are necessary.

City of San Diego

101 Cal. 522 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1894

In support of this proposition we are referred to Freeman on Cotenancy, sections 188, 535, and to the cases of Dali v. Brown, 5 Cush. 289 , and Eaton v. Talmadge, 24 Wis. 223 . … In Borel v.

Newton v. Industrial Accident Commission

204 Cal. 185 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1928

Brown, a highway contractor, on or about October 6, 1926, and had been in such employment for some months. … As said in Dearborn v. Industrial Accident Commission, 187 Cal. 591 [ 203 Pac. 112 ], quoting from the case of Southern Pacific Co. v.

Cooper v. Bray

21 Cal. 3d 841 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1978

“In light of the demise of the automobile guest statute in Brown v. … As defendants acknowledge, however, in 1973 the Legislature repealed the guest-passenger portion of section 17158 and thus any attempt to turn the clock back to pre-Brown v. Merlo law is clearly futile. After Brown v.

People v. Ferlin

203 Cal. 587 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1928

It will be recalled that Brown was lessee under the defendant. … Code) has divested the trial court of any discretion in fixing the exact term of imprisonment, and has vested such discretion in the board of prison directors within the limits prescribed by the Penal Code. (People v.

Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital District

65 Cal. 2d 499 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1966

Sherbert v. Verner, supra, 374 U.S. 398, 407 ; NAACP v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415, 432-433 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 405 , 83 S.Ct. 328 ]; Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) 366 U.S. 599, 607 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 563 , 81 S.Ct. 1144 ] ; Shelton v. … Board of Higher Education (1956) 350 U.S. 551, 555 [ 100 L.Ed. 692 , 76 S.Ct. 637 ]; Wieman v.

In Re Cohen

11 Cal. 3d 935 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1974

Fielding v. … Its recommendation is entitled to great weight (see Browne v. State Bar, 45 Cal.2d 165, 170 [ 287 P.2d 745 ]), and “ ‘has caused us to hesitate to award the extreme penalty provided by law’ ” (see Egan v.

People v. McIntire

23 Cal. 3d 742 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1979

(See, e.g., People v. … In Patty v.

Hollman v. Warren

32 Cal. 2d 351 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1948

Superior Court, 128 Cal.App. 522 [ 18 P.2d 112 ]; First National Bank v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.App. 64 [ 234 P. 420 ]; Browning v. Dow, 60 Cal.App. 680 [ 213 P. 707 ]; Gammon v. … (See Board of Soc. Welfare v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.2d 98, 100, 101 [ 162 P.2d 627 ]; also, Platnauer v. Board of Supervisors, supra.)

Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals

58 Cal. 4th 655 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2014

(Runyon v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2010) 48 Cal.4th 760 (Runyon); State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court (2009) 45 Cal.4th 963 (Arbuckle); but see Miklosy v. … (E.g., Poliner v.

People v. Beamon

8 Cal. 3d 625 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1973

(People v. … [People v. Brown (1958) 49 Cal.2d 577, 591 ( 320 P.2d 5 ).]

Lum v. American Wheel & Vehicle Co.

165 Cal. 657 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1913

Ed. 337 ]; Republican Mountain Silver Mines v. Brown, 58 Fed. 644 , [24 L. R. A. 776, 7 C. C. A. 412 ]; Giesen v. London & N. W. Am. Mortgage Co., 102 Fed. 584 , [ 42 C. C. A. 515 ]; Miles v. … Co. v.

Estate of Henderson

17 Cal. 2d 853 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1941

Appellant cites Estate of Dol, 182 Cal. 159 [ 187 P. 428 ], Brown v. La Societe Francaise, etc., 138 Cal. 475 [ 71 P. 516 ], and Gorman v. … Smith (Re Wilson), supra; Most Worshipful Grand Lodge v. Board of Review, 281 Ill. 480 [ 117 N.E. 1016 ]; Roberts v. Corson, 79 N. H. 215 [ 107 Atl. 625 ]; State v.

County of Riverside v. County of San Bernardino

134 Cal. 517 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1901

It was also averred, in general terms, that these alleged improper findings were made fraudulently, and were the result of a conspiracy between the commissioners Barton, Brown, and Stamm, constituting a majority of the board … The decision in Orange County v.