Case law

San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court

24 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1979

(Placentia Fire Fighters v. City of Placentia (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 9, 25 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 126 ] (construing Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, § 3505).) … (Labor Board v. Insurance Agents (1960) 361 U.S. 477, 489 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 454, 464 , 80 S.Ct. 419 ]; cf. Lamphere Sch. Dist. v.

People v. County of Tulare

45 Cal. 2d 317 · California Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1955

45 Cal.2d 317 (1955) THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF TULARE et al., Respondents. Sac. No. 6640. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. Oct. 27, 1955. Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, E. G. Benard, James E. … (Irvine v.

Talcott v. Bd. of State Harbor Comm'rs

53 Cal. 199 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1878

It is not expressly stated in the agreed case that the Board had adjusted and audited the claim, nor that it had refused so to do, but it is claimed that the extract from the proceedings of the Board (whereby it appears that … upon a vote being taken for the payment of the bill of the claimants, two of the members of the Board voted aye, and one member no) shows by implication that the Board had audited and adjusted the claim in the full amount

Estate of Pitts

218 Cal. 184 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1933

No person can become a member of the corporation except the owner of an apartment, and then only upon vote of a majority of the board of directors, which board is comprised of the members. … It is said in Brown v. Sweet, 95 Cal. App. 117 [ 272 Pac. 614 ]: “It may be regarded as elementary that the word ‘land’ may and does include an estate or interest in the land. Indeed, as stated in Fish v.

McCann v. Children's Home Society

176 Cal. 359 · California Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1917

Brown. … Code, sec. 358; Spring Valley Water Whs. v. San Francisco, 22 Cal. 434 ; Bakersfield T. H. Assn v. Chester, 55 Cal. 98 ; Weaverville W. R. Co, v. Board of Supervisors, 64 Cal. 69 , [ 28 Pac. 496 ]; Lakeside Ditch Co. v.

Skidgel v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

282 Cal. Rptr. 3d 639 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 2021

SKIDGEL v. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. I. … Brown and Hadara R. Stanton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): Stephen E.

Jarvis v. Cory

28 Cal. 3d 562 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1980

(Rankin v. Colgan (1891) 92 Cal. 605, 606-607 [ 28 P. 673 ]; Stevenson v. Colgan (1891) 91 Cal. 649, 652-653 [ 27 P. 1089 ]; Jorgenson v. Cranston (1962) 211 Cal.App.2d 292, 298-299 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 297 ].) … Com. v. Payne (1947) 31 Cal.2d 210, 214 [ 187 P.2d 702 ]; see also Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v.

Calfarm Insurance v. Deukmejian

48 Cal. 3d 805 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1989

(See Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 ]; Hardie v. Eu (1976) 18 Cal.3d 371 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 556 P.2d 301 ].) … Hirsh, supra, 256 U.S. 135 and Marcus Brown Co. v. Feldman (1921) 256 U.S. 170 [ 65 L.Ed. 877 , 41 S.Ct. 465 ], (See Lopez v. Mirabel (1987) 127 App.Div.2d 771 [512 N.Y.Supp.2d 164]; cf. Edgewater Inv. Assoc. v.

People ex rel. State Bd. of Harbor Comm'rs v. Larue

66 Cal. 235 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1884

(Rowland v. Coyne, 55 Cal. 1 .) Third. That Greenlaw’s affidavit was insufficient; and cite Nickerson v. California Raisin Company, 61 Cal. 268 . … See also, Watkins v. Degener, 63 Cal. 500 . Order affirmed.

In Re Jackson

39 Cal. 3d 464 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1985

(Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 484 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 691 P.2d 272 ]; Palos Verdes Faculty Assn. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified Sch. … (Beazell v. Ohio, supra, 269 U.S. at p. 171 ; People v. Smith, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 260.) 13 It appears that to a limited extent the Board has already recognized this point.

Geurkink v. City of Petaluma

112 Cal. 306 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1896

It is said in Eachus v. Los Angeles Ry. … In Brown v. *310 Seattle, 5 Wash. 44 , it is held that injunction is the proper remedy in a like case, and the court, in speaking to that point, said: “ We can foresee many difficulties, and perhaps much litigation, likely

In re Cook

247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2019

(Citing People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 323; In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744–748.) … Oil Co. v.

People v. Buster

11 Cal. 215 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

The People, 1 Gilman R. 409; The People v. Brown, 2 Doug. R. 9. Third—That all the defendants, sureties, are discharged by the release of a portion of the number, and the approval and filing of new bonds. … (Averill v. Lyman, 18 Pick. 346 ; Goodman v. Smith, lb. 416 ; Canegie v. Morrison, 2 Met. 381 ; Wiggins v. Tudor, 23 Pick. 434 ; Crane v. Ailing, 3 Greenl. 423; United States v.

Spier v. Baker

120 Cal. 370 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1898

(Marsh v. Supervisors, 111 Cal. 368 .)

Fein v. Permanente Medical Group

38 Cal. 3d 137 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1985

(See Arneson v. Olson, supra, 270 N.W.2d at p. 135 [$300,000 limit on total damages]; Jones v. State Board of Medicine, supra, 555 P.2d at p. 410 [$150,000 limit on total damages].) … Brown was subsequently followed in Cooper v. Bray, supra, 21 Cal.3d 841 .

Irish v. Hahn

208 Cal. 339 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1929

The construction of a tunnel at the expense of the taxpayers and to be used by a privately owned street railway was declared to be a public benefit in Browne v. Turner, 176 Mass. 9 [ 56 N. E. 969 ]. Fisher v. … It was a mere denial of the conclusive determination of the board of directors appearing as a matter of public record and constituted an admission of the allegation. (Mulcahy v.

Norgart v. Upjohn Co.

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 453 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1999

Soc. v. Culver (1899) 127 Cal. 107, 110 [ 59 P. 292 ]), it operates conclusively across the board, and not flexibly on a case-by-case basis. (See, e.g., Castro v. … (See, e.g., Brown v. Bleiberg (1982) 32 Cal.3d 426, 432 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 651 P.2d 815 ].)

Hines v. Miller

126 Cal. 683 · California Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1899

Co. v. Center, 107 Cal. 193 . See, also, Painter v. Painter, 98 Cal. 625 ; Kreling v. Kreling, 116 Cal. 458 .) … Co. v. Fisher, 106 Cal. 224 ; Macomber v. Bigelow, ante, p. 9.) The judgment is affirmed. Garoutte, J., and Van Dyke, J., concurred.

Bd. of Supervisors of Sacramento v. Bird

31 Cal. 66 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

It was provided by the first section of the Act that “for the government of that territory known as the City and County of Sacramento, there shall be a Board of Supervisors; and the said Board of Supervisors and their successors … The case of the People v.

Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. Belcher

4 Cal. 2d 268 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1935

Although the certificate of the secretary recited that the resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the board, the by-laws did not provide for regular meetings. … (Wood Estate Co. v. Chanslor, 209 Cal. 241 [ 286 Pac. 1001 ]; Bradley v. Butchart, 217 Cal. 731, 744 [ 20 Pac. (2d) 693 ]; Blood v. La Serena L. & W. Co., 134 Cal. 361 [ 66 Pac. 317 ]; Brown v.