Case law

Santa Barbara School District v. Superior Court

13 Cal. 3d 315 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1975

(Board of Education v. Swann, supra, 402 U.S. at p. 45 [ 28 L.Ed.2d at p. 589 ].) … (See Brown v. Superior Court (1949) 34 Cal.2d 559, 566 [ 212 P.2d 878 ]; see 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) p. 3933.) The writ shall issue accordingly. II We now turn our attention to the appeal before us.

Hollywood Cemetery Assn. v. Powell

210 Cal. 121 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1930

(See McCarthy v. Board of Fire Commrs., 37 Cal. App. 495 [ 174 Pac. 402 ]; Thomas v. Joplin, 14 Cal. App. 662 [ 112 Pac. 729 ]; 23 Cal. Jur. 778.) . … (Hertle v. Riddell, 127 Ky. 623 [ 128 Am. St. Rep. 364 , 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 796, 106 S. W. 282 ]; Brown v. Hill, 284 Ill. 286 [ 119 N. E. 977 ].)

Phelan v. County of San Francisco

6 Cal. 531 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

The Act of April 29, 1851, creating a board of supervisors for the county of San Francisco and defining their duties, gave no power to this board to purchase lands for the county, nor to make any such contract as the one … Naugatuck Railroad Co., 21 ib., 557; Danforth v. Scoharie Turnpike Co., 12 Johns., 237; Randall v. Van Véchten et als., 19 ib., 60; Brown v. Bell, 20 ib., 338; Gale v. Nixon & Nixon, 6 Cowen, 445; Moss v.

Cal. Grape Control Bd., Ltd. v. Boothe Fruit Co.

220 Cal. 279 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1934

These acts of defendant’s president and manager were imputable to the corporation (Lowe v. Yolo County etc. Water Co., 157 Cal. 503 [ 108 Pac. 297 ]). … Co. v. Duffy, 94 Okl. 16 [ 220 Pac. 846 , 35 A. L.

In Re Dannenberg

23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 417 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 2005

(See People v. … People v.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 672 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2001

J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. … (Minn. 1990) 457 N.W.2d 175, 182-183 ; Brown Group, Inc. v. George F. Brown & Sons (Mo.Ct.App. 1997) 963 S.W.2d 285, 287-288 ; Ryan v. Royal Ins.

Fisher v. City of Berkeley

37 Cal. 3d 644 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1984

No. 51-190, 26 Stat. 209 (1890) codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 ; see Parker v. Brown (1943) 317 U.S. 341, 351 [ 87 L.Ed. 315, 326 , 63 S.Ct. 307 ], citing Remarks of Sen. … Brown held are not subject to the Sherman Act.” (435 U.S. at p. 426 [55 L.Ed.2d at p. 391].)

Stewart v. Thompson

32 Cal. 260 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

We so held in effect in Hager v. Schindler, 29 Cal. 60. … We held, in Hager v. Schindler, that in no event could the statute commence to *264 run until the execution of the Sheriff’s deed.

People v. Knott

15 Cal. 2d 628 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1940

Brown, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent. *630 EDMONDS, J. … amount is clearly chargeable to the county, and within the jurisdiction of the board to accept or reject (County of Yolo v.

Sharon S. v. Superior Court

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 699 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2003

(Michael H. v. … (b)(1) [common residence requirement for domestic partner registration]), but she does not claim the adoption statutes contain any such across-the-board requirement.

Williams v. Williams

36 Cal. 2d 289 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1950

Relying upon Brown v. … The rule of the Brown case was applied in Maxwell v.

Hollywood Turf Club v. Daugherty

36 Cal. 2d 352 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1950

It was held valid (Matter of Brown, 156 Cal. 632 [ 105 P. 739 ]), and has been amended from time to time and exists today in a more elaborate form. … (Stats. 1933, p. 2046; Southern California Jockey Club v. California Horse Racing Board, ante, p. 167 [ 223 P.2d 1 ].)

Geary v. Bd. of Supervisors of San Diego

107 Cal. 530 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1895

As is said in Hill v. Board of Supervisors, 95 Cal. 242 , the mode prescribed by the statute for the laying out of roads is to some extent the measure of the power of the board of supervisors. … If a valid bond was necessary to give the board jurisdiction to act at all, we do not see how an amended bond could validate previous acts of the board done without jurisdiction.

MacKenzie v. Hodgkin

126 Cal. 591 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1899

(Winter v. McMillan, 87 Cal. 256 ; 22 Am. St. Rep. 243 ; Eureka v. Gates, 120 Cal. 54 ; Colton etc. Co. v. Raynor, 57 Cal. 592, 593 ; Chalmers v. Trent, 11 Utah, 88 , and cases cited.) … Code, secs. 1595, 1605, 1661; Pollock on Contracts, 161, 162; Vanderbilt v. Schreyer, 91 N. Y. 401 .)

Bertch v. Social Welfare Department

45 Cal. 2d 524 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1955

Petitioners rely upon Laisne v. California State Board of Optometry, 19 Cal.2d 831 [ 123 P.2d 457 ], and Drummey v. … argues that the question of "need" is one of fact for the board and cites Newbold v.

National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. San Bernardino City Unified School District

17 Cal. 3d 311 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1976

As we have explained in Crawford v. … As the United States Supreme Court observed in Green v.

Janin v. Browne

59 Cal. 37 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1881

(Siboni v. Kirhham, 1 Mee. & W. 418.) … (Wentworth v. Cock, 10 Ad. & E. 42.) And in Siboni v.

Davis v. Judson

159 Cal. 121 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1910

(Arguello v. Edinger, 10 Cal. 150 ; Calanchini v. Branstetter, 84 Cal. 249 , [ 24 Pac. 149 ]; Foster v. Maginnis, 89 Cal. 264 , [ 26 Pac. 828 ]; Fulton v. … Per.), sec. 120 et seq.; Browne’s Statute of Frauds, sec. 472, 476.) This essential character of possession clearly Wilson never had.

Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach

41 Cal. 3d 937 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1986

(Fichera v. State Personnel Board (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 613, 622 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 159 ], italics added; see also Szmaciarz v. … (Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 206-207 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 539 P.2d 774 ]) . . .

Miller v. Mun. Court of L. A.

22 Cal. 2d 818 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1943

(Taylor v. Brown,-F.Supp.- (July 15, 1943) ; and see Henderson v. Kimmel, 47 F.Supp. 635 .) … . *836 (Taylor v. Brown, supra; United States v. C. Thomas Stores, Inc., 49 F.Supp. 111, 113 .)