Case law

Fackrell v. City of San Diego

26 Cal. 2d 196 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1945

In Mulder v. City of Los Angeles (1930), 110 Cal.App. 663, 668 [ 294 P. 485 ], a contractor with the permission of the board of public works made a fill and embankment above plaintiff’s property. … (McAllister v. Brown (1931), 114 Cal.App. 239, 240 [ 299 P. 753 ].) The determination of that fact rests with the court, not the actor.

Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Ass'n v. Terifaj

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 67 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 2004

In Nahrstedt v. … Basso imposed a reasonableness analysis to rules promulgated by a board of directors or decisions by the board denying a certain use when the decision falls within the board’s authority, explaining the reason for the more

Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura

42 Cal. 3d 1172 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1986

Dist. v. … In Beard v.

Marsters v. Lash

61 Cal. 622 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1882

the black or brown horse one hundred and twenty-five dollars. … (Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 253 ; Hickman v. Alpaugh, 21 id. 225; Hill v. Grigsby, 32 id. 60.) A question arose in Smoot v. Russell, 1 Mart. (N.

Canaan v. Abdelnour

40 Cal. 3d 703 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1985

(Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 1, 5 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 431 ], italics omitted.) … (See, e.g., Smith v. Smathers (Fla. 1979) 372 So.2d 427 ; Jackson v. Norris (1937) 173 Md. 579 [ 195 A. 576 ] [but see Board of Sup’rs v.

Wright v. Beeson

159 Cal. 133 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1911

Judgment was given in favor of Beeson in the case of Beeson v. Wright (No. 9184) for the recovery of $2,385.12 alleged to be due as the balance of the price of the stock. In the case of Wright v. … The judgment and order in the case of Beeson v. Wright are reversed; the judgment and order in the ease of Wright v.

Riskin v. Industrial Accident Commission

23 Cal. 2d 248 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1943

Charles Brown, the proprietor of a general store at Shoshone, who sometimes acted as an intermediary or agent for mine owners, that petitioners wanted 40 feet of tunneling done on the mine and requested that if he, Brown, … Money to pay for the whole 40 feet of tunneling had been deposited with Brown by Morris.

Filarsky v. Superior Court

121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 844 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 2002

Brown (1979) 441 U.S. 281, 290-294 [ 99 S.Ct. 1705, 1711-1714 , 60 L.Ed.2d 208 ].) … Amici curiae rely upon the high court’s decision in Renegotiation Board v.

EAST BAY ASIAN LOCAL DEVEOPMENT v. State

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2000

First, the statute must.have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. … V Disposition. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. Kennard, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Pellett v. Sonotone Corp.

26 Cal. 2d 705 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1945

Defendant Brown, a salesman and “consultant” for defendant Sonotone, requested defendant Compton, a dentist, to make the cast, and plaintiff and Brown went to Compton’s office for that purpose. … This view is illustrated by McKenna v.

Gardner v. County of Sonoma

129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 869 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 2003

Co. v. … (Berton v.

Schwartz v. Cowell

71 Cal. 306 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1886

The plaintiff derived no title through the attempted attachment in the action of Steen v. Brown. … (Watt v. Wright, 66 Cal. 202 ; Main v. Tappener, 43 Cal. 206 ; Sharp v. Baird, 43 Cal. 577 ; Porter v. Pico, 55 Cal. 172 .) 2. The judgment in the action of Steen v.

In re Lewis

233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 114 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 2018

(See, e.g., People v. … We further note that in Moore v.

United States v. State

25 Cal. 2d 697 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1944

In the case of Hamilton v. Brown, 161 US. 256 [16 S. … Smith v. Board of Commissioners, 132 Kan. 233 [ 294 P. 915 ] (certiorari denied, 283 U.S. 855 [ 51 S.Ct. 648 , 75 L.Ed. 1462 ]).)

San Jose Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court

38 Cal. 3d 839 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1985

Allen (1963) 373 U.S. 113 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 235 , 83 S.Ct. 1158 ] (Allen); Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, supra, 431 U.S. 209 (Abood); and Ellis v. Brotherhood of Railway etc. … (Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir. 1983) 708 F.2d 486, 487 , cert. den. 464 U.S. 995 [ 78 L.Ed.2d 685 , 104 S.Ct. 490 ]; see also Browne v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch.

Wall v. Bd. of Dirs. of Deaf

145 Cal. 468 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1904

But, notwithstanding the generality of the term “employee,”—which includes officers (United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96 , Fed. Cas. No. 15747, cited, Patton v. … (Patton v. Board of Health, 127 Cal. 388 ; 1 People v. Harrington, 63 Cal. 257 ; People v. Wheeler, 136 Cal. 652 .)

Rodgers v. Byers

127 Cal. 528 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1900

(McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 180 ; 95 Am. Dec. 170 ; Chabot v. Tucker, 39 Cal. 434 ; Biddel v. Brizzolara, 56 Cal. 374 ; Lambert v. Schmalz, 118 Cal. 33 .) 2. … Brown, supra; Chaffee v. Browne, 109 Cal. 211 ; Southern Pac. Co. v. Prosser, 122 Cal. 413 .) 3.

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.

People v. Moore

51 Cal. 4th 386 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 2011

At 2:15 p.m., a neighbor noticed two or three boards were missing from the fence. … to warn Carnahan about the prowlers and the missing boards, and the man he had seen in Carnahan’s backyard.

In Re Governorship

26 Cal. 3d 110 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1979

(See Conger v. Gilmer (1867) 32 Cal. 75 [board of supervisors could reconsider appointment before issuing appointee a commission]; Harrington v. Pardee (1905) 1 Cal. App. 278 [ 82 P. 83 ].) … Todd v. Essling (1964) 268 Minn. 151, 156 [ 128 N.W.2d 307 ].) Therefore we conclude that Governor Brown's withdrawal of the Arabian appointment was valid.