Case law

Bd. of Educ. of San Francisco v. Fowler

19 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

We have held in Heydenfeldt v. Hitchcock, following the early decision in Smith v. Morse, that this deed is void as a transfer of *22 the property of the city. (See 15 Cal. 514 .) … It is urged that the Board of Education is not a body or legal person capable of suing ; but this point is answered by the act. 2. It is ui’ged that the suit of The City of San Francisco v. E.

Teague v. Bd. of Trs. of Belmont Heights

156 Cal. 351 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1909

This is an original application for a writ of mandate to compel the board of trustees and the city clerk of the city of Belmont Heights, a municipal corporation, to give notice of a city election to be held in said city on … (People v. Los Angeles, 133 Cal. 342 , [ 65 Pac. 749 ]; People v. Loyalton, 147 Cal. 779 , [ 82 Pac. 620 ]. See, also, People v. Ontario, 148 Cal. 634 , [ 84 Pac. 205 ]; German S. & L. Soc. v.

Kelly v. Methodist Hospital of Southern Cal.

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 514 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 2000

Relying on our decision in Jennings v. … J., Mosk, J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Appeal of North Beach & Mission Railroad

32 Cal. 499 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

(Wolfe v. Frost, 4 Sand. Ch., 89 ; Foster v. Browning, 4 R. I. 51.) … (Bowman's Devisees v.

Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

53 Cal. 3d 987 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 1991

(Barker, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 432; see also Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal. 3d 1049, 1066 ; Vermeulen v. Superior Court, supra, 204 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1206 ; Oakes v. E. I. … We recently reviewed and further refined the principles of strict liability in Brown v.

Bleecher v. Conte

29 Cal. 3d 345 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1981

(Brown v. Superior Court (1949) 34 Cal.2d 559, 564 [ 212 P.2d 878 ]; see also Redke v. … (See, e.g., Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.2d at p. 564 ; Mattei v. Hopper, supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 124 ; Rodriguez v.

United States v. Jacks

47 Cal. 515 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

The case is, in this important respect, wholly unlike that of the California Pacific Railroad v. Armstrong, 46 Cal. 85 .

In Re Hoffman

67 Cal. 2d 845 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1967

Brown, supra; People v. Poe, supra; People v. Green, supra.) … Adderley v. Florida, supra; People v. Brown, supra; People v. Green, supra.)

Procter v. Southern California Railway Co.

130 Cal. 20 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1900

(Sloane v. Southern California Ry. Co., 111 Cal. 668 .) … (Sloane v. Southern California Ry. Co., supra; Irish v. Sunderhaus, 122 Cal. 308 ; Alexander v. Central Lumber etc. Co., 104 Cal. 532 .)

Cal. School Bds. Assn. v. State of Cal.

California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2019

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 180.) … (See California School Boards Assn. v.

Parke v. Franciscus

194 Cal. 284 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1924

(Swank v. Moisan, *296 85 Or. 662 [ 166 Pac. 962 ].) In Briedwell v. … In Wiedeman v.

Bloniarz v. Roloson

70 Cal. 2d 143 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1969

Brown (1941) 19 Cal.2d 209, 214 [ 120 P.2d 9 ]); the prevention of the wrongful use of process rightfully issued (see Spellens v. Spellens (1957) 49 Cal.2d 210, 230-233 [ 317 P.2d 613 ]; Arc Inv. Co. v. … (Buxbom v. Smith (1944) 23 Cal.2d 535, 542 [ 145 P.2d 305 ]; Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 638 [ 234 P.2d 981 ]; Luckey v. Superior Court (1930) 209 Cal. 360, 366 [ 287 P. 450 ]; McDougald v.

Rosenfeld v. Miller

1 Cal. 2d 206 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1934

Post, 154 Cal. 22 [ 96 Pac. 878 ], Brown v. Mason, 155 Cal. 155 [ 99 Pac. 867 , 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 328], and Cline v. Carpenter, 83 Cal. App. 792 [ 257 Pac. 459 ]. … The ease of Moore v.

Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors of S.F.

52 Cal. 553 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1878

In Tilden v. … (Ibid. p. 8; Ward v. Landers, 1 El. & E. Q. B. pp. 940-957.) And in New York it has been held a Board of Supervisors cannot by their own neglect nullify a statute imposing duties upon them. (People v.

Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.

17 Cal. 4th 985 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1998

Brown v. … (Brown, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 565 .)

People v. Andrews

49 Cal. 3d 200 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1989

(People v. Brown, supra, at p. 541; People v. Allen, supra, at p. 1277 .) … If the board finds a disparity, it must notify the sentencing judge, who is required to conduct a new sentencing hearing at which the board’s finding is given “great weight.” (People v.

Keenan v. Superior Court

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 2002

(Board of Trustees, State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox (1989) 492 U.S. 469, 478 [ 109 S.Ct. 3028, 3034 , 106 L.Ed.2d 388 ].) … The Attorney General represents that he has pending a case, Lockyer v. Brown, aka “X-Raided” (Super. Ct.

People v. Curry

62 Cal. 2d 207 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1965

In People v. … (Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477 [ 83 S.Ct. 768 , 9 L.Ed.2d 892 ].) “Under the findings a denial of the right to appeal would present serious constitutional problems.

West Covina Enterprises, Inc. v. Chalmers

49 Cal. 2d 754 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1958

(Burne v. Lee, 156 Cal. 221 [ 104 P. 438 ]; Vagim v. Brown, 63 Cal.App.2d 504 [ 146 P.2d 923 ].) The present contract is not, however, of that nature. … (See Thomas v. Hunt Mfg. Corp., 42 Cal.2d 734, 739 [ 269 P.2d 12 ].)

Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education

57 Cal. 4th 197 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2013

Co. v. Sullivan (1999) 526 U.S. 40, 59; see also Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, supra, 470 U.S. at p. 538 & fn. 3.) … (Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, supra, 470 U.S. at p. 545.) Pursuant to Mathews v.