Case law

McKeon v. Neuschwander

209 Cal. 283 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1930

(Brown v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irr. Dist., supra (p. 188.) … (Brown v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irr. Dist., supra (p. 188.)

Irwin v. County of Yuba

119 Cal. 686 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1898

(Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 602 ; and see, also, Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 222 .) It will hardly be contended that the board could delegate any of its powers to this debris association. … The same doctrine was enunciated in Board of Supervisors v. Allis. 59 N. Y. 620 . So, also, in Moore v. Toledo City Independent Dist., 55 Iowa, 654 , and numerous other cases which might be cited.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Industrial Accident Commission

39 Cal. 2d 512 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1952

Piusinski v. … A somewhat similar situation occurred in O'Leavy v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504 [ 71 S.Ct. 470 , 95 L.Ed. 483 ], although in the latter case the death occurred off the employer's premises.

County of Siskiyou v. Gamlich

110 Cal. 94 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1895

(Damrell v. San Joaquin County, 40 Cal. 154 ; Humboldt County v. Dinsmore, 75 Cal. 604 ; Los Angeles County v. San Jose etc. Water Co., 96 Cal. 93 .) 2. … (Los Angeles County v. San Jose etc. Water Co., supra.) All these facts were sufficiently proved by the plaintiff. 4.

People v. Johnson

47 Cal. 4th 668 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2009

Brown (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 207, 215-217 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 476 ] (Brown). … (People v.

People v. Dunn

59 Cal. 328 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1881

(Wells, Fargo & Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 194 .) … Where, in such case, is the equality or uniformity which is the controlling idea of the Constitution V (Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 673 .)

City of Napa v. Easterby

61 Cal. 509 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1882

The charter requires that the Board of Trustees shall “ cause to be published ” all ordinances. This means that the Board shall order the publication. (Temple, J., in Chambers v. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 521 ; Donnelly v. … Tillman, 47 id. 41; Donnelly v. Marks, id. 191; Himmelmann v. Satterlee , 49 id. 387; Reis v. Graff, 51 id. 90.)

County of Modoc v. Spencer

103 Cal. 498 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 1894

(Robinson v. Supervisors, 16 Cal. 208 ; San Joaquin County v. Jones, 18 Cal. 327 ; Foster v. Coleman, 10 Cal. 279 ; Linden v. Case, 46 Cal. 171 .) … (Linden v. Case, 46 Cal. 171 .) The other questions, as we have indicated, do not demand extended notice.

People ex rel. Wilshire v. Newman

96 Cal. 605 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1892

The various acts of the legislature relating to the board of fire commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, and the effect thereof, are considered in People v. … (Whitney v. Board of Delegates, 14 Cal. 497 .) In People v.

Stockton v. Department of Employment

25 Cal. 2d 264 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1944

(Alexander v. State Personnel Board, 22 Cal.2d 198 [ 137 P.2d 433 ]; Menzel Estate Co. v. City of Redding, 178 Cal. 474, 481 [ 174 P. 48 ]; Gurtz v. City of San Bruno, 8 Cal.App.2d 399, 401 [ 48 P.2d 142 ]; Ingraham v. … (State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 467, 474 [ 127 P.2d 4 ] ; Wiles v. State Personnel Board, 19 Cal.2d 344 [ 121 P.2d 673 ]; Kelly v. State Personnel Board, 31 Cal.App.2d 443 [ 88 P.2d 264 ].)

Carroll v. Siebenthaler

37 Cal. 193 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

.: The principle that the salary annexed to a public office is incident to the title to the office, and not to its occupation and exercise, was affirmed in Dorsey v. Smiih, 28 Cal. 21 , and Stratton v. … (Dorsey v. Smith, supra.)

Skelly Estate Co. v. City & County of San Francisco

9 Cal. 2d 28 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1937

(Holmes Investment Co. v. Board of Supervisors, supra.) Jurisdiction was granted to the State Board of Equalization by the constitutional amendment. (Holmes Investment Co. v. Board of Supervisors, supra.) … (Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 66 Cal. App. 157 [ 225 Pac. 783 ].)” Substantially the same rule is applied in Douglas v. Pension Board, 75 Cal. App. 335 [ 242 Pac. 756 ].

Bank of California v. Shaber

55 Cal. 322 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

In support of the views herein expressed, reference may be had to the following authorities : People v. Fitzgerald, Treasurer, 54 How. Pr. 1 ; Board of Supervisors v. Bowen, 4 Lans. 31 ; People v. … Lawrence, 6 Hill, 244 ; El Dorado County v. Elstner, 18 Cal. 144 ; Supervisors v. Briggs, 3 Denio, 173 ; Martin v. Supervisors, 29 N. Y. 645 . In Board of Supervisors v.

DeRonde v. Regents of the University of California

28 Cal. 3d 875 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1981

[T]he conclusion is inescapable that applicants to medical school must be few indeed who endured the effects of de jure segregation, the resistance to Brown I [Brown v. … (See Crawford v. Board of Education (1976) 17 Cal.3d 280, 301-302 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 551 P.2d 28 ].)

Young v. Haines

41 Cal. 3d 883 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1986

(See Brown v. Bleiberg, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 432-433.) … (See Brown v. Bleiberg, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 438, fn. 9 ; Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 102; Huysman v.

People v. Supervisors of Sacramento County

59 Cal. 321 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1881

property of such roads by the State Board of Equalization. … The State Board equalizes values as between different counties. The County Board equalizes valuations as between different parcels or articles of property in the same county. (Wells, Fargo & Co. v.

City of Moorpark v. Superior Court

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 445 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1998

BROWN, Justice, concurring and dissenting. I concur in the majority's conclusion that plaintiff Theresa L. … (See Stevenson, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 914-915, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888 , 941 P.2d 1157 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).)

Russell v. Electrical Workers Local 569

64 Cal. 2d 22 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1966

Similarly in Hattiesburg Unions v. … Two Louisiana cases require declination by the board as a precondition to state action under section 14(c). (Derouen v. Lard (La.App. 1960) 121 So.2d 311 , 315 ; Barksdale & LeBlanc v.

People v. Cleveland

106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 313 · California Supreme Court · May 7, 2001

U.S. v. Brown (D.C. … (U.S. v. Brown, supra, 823 F.2d 591, 596 .) The court recognized, however, that the reason a request for discharge was made often will be unclear.

Meyer v. City of San Diego

121 Cal. 102 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1898

Rep. 180 ; Commonwealth v. Reed, 1 Gray, 472 ; Ellis v. Smith, 42 Ala. 349 ; Fine v. St. Louis Public Schools, 30 Mo. 166 ; Stockwell v. Township Board, supra; Fiske v. Paine, 18 R. I. 632; Dimes v. … (Story’s Equity Pleading, secs. 97, 98; 1 Freeman on Judgments, sec. 178; Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389 ; Gamble v. San Diego, 79 Fed. Rep. 487.)