Case law

Russell v. Miller

21 Cal. 2d 817 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1943

The trial court adopted that procedure as being in conformity with the decision of this court in Drummey v. State Board of Funeral Directors, 13 Cal.2d 75 [ 87 P.2d 848 ]. … of the District Court of Appeal shortly theretofore rendered in the case of Laisne v.

Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Mundo

37 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1951

The question presented to the superior court in such an action is whether there was evidence of sufficient substantiality before the board to justify the finding (Kaiser Co. v. … Bank v. County of Los Angeles, supra, at p. 322.) Presumably the evidence now sought was not introduced in the proceeding before the board.

Denning v. State

123 Cal. 316 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1899

(Chapman v. State, 104 Cal. 690 ; 43 Am. St. Rep. 158 ; Melvin v. State, 121 Cal. 16 .) Respondent’s first point cannot, therefore, be sustained. … In Melvin v.

Tipton-Whittingham v. City of Los Angeles

21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 371 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 2004

Later the City moved for reconsideration of the award in light of Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. … Baxter, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino

59 Cal. 2d 35 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1963

(See Kerrigan v. Maloof, 98 Cal.App.2d 605, 616 [ 221 P.2d 153 ] ; Brown v. Jensen, 41 Cal.2d 193, 201 [ 259 P.2d 425 ] [dissent].) … In Brown v.

Marin Water & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission

171 Cal. 706 · California Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1916

(Quinchard v. Board of Trustees, 113 Cal. 669 , [ 45 Pac. 856 ].) An essential element of judicial power, distinguishing it from legislative power, is that it requires “the ascertainment of existing rights.” (People v. … (Van Fleet on Collateral Attack, sec. 806; Long v. Burnett, 13 Iowa, 28 , [ 81 Am. Dec. 420 ].) In such a case “jurisdiction cannot be lost by the erroneous exercise of the power conferred.” (Brown on Jur., sec. 25.)

Rusheen v. Cohen

39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 516 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2006

In Brown v. … (See Rubin, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 1198-1199, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 847 P.2d 1044 ; Brown, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 45, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 891 ; see also Temple Community Hospital v.

People v. Town of Ontario

148 Cal. 625 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1906

And herein such a case differs from that of Bedell v. … (People v. Los Angeles, 133 Cal. 338 , [ 65 P. 749 ].)

People v. Breverman

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 870 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1998

BROWN, J., Dissenting. … across-the-board assumption to the contrary.

In re Palmer

10 Cal. 5th 959 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 2021

People v. … U.S. v.

Southern Pac. Land Co. v. County of San Diego

183 Cal. 543 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1920

Co. v. … Co. v. County of Los Angeles, supra.)

Ex Parte Gerino

143 Cal. 412 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1904

(People v. Provines, 34 Cal. 541 .) The decisions in Britton v. Board of Commissioners, 129 Cal. 341 , and Murphy v. Curry, 137 Cal. 485 , are not applicable. … V., see. 8; Quigg v. Evans, 121 Cal. 551 ; People v. Edwards. 93 Cal. 156 .)

Alpha Beta Food Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union Local 770

45 Cal. 2d 764 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1955

Oil Co. v. Gas Dev. Co., 105 Mont. [ 69 P.2d 750, 758 ].) … Van, Norden v. Metson, 75 Cal.App.2d *772 595 [ 171 P.2d 485 ] ; Dale v. Raines, 115 Cal.App.2d 309 [ 252 P.2d 22 ]), or requiring governmental approval in express provisional terms (e.g. Hein v.

Schmidt v. Brieg

22 L.R.A. 790 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1893

(McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 251 ; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 542 . See also Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Baumbach, 32 Fed. Rep. 212; California Fig Syrup Co. v. Improved Fig Syrup Co., 51 Fed. … (Brown on Trademarks, sec. 236.)

Hostetter v. Alderson

38 Cal. 2d 499 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1952

(See Boren v. State Personnel Board, 37 Cal.2d 634, 638 [ 234 P.2d 981 ].) … (See Annotation, 28 A.L.R. 777 ; Loucks v. Board of Education, 258 App.Div. 1003 [ 16 N.Y.S.2d 733 ] ; Balacek v. Board of Trustees, 263 App.Div. 712 [ 30 N.Y.S.2d 1007]; Sganga v.

Reclamation District No. 3 v. Goldman

65 Cal. 635 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1884

(See Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Cal. 685 ; Davidson v. Dallas, 15 Cal. 75 ; Mulford v. Estudillo, 32 Cal. 131 ; Jaffe v. Skae, 48 Cal. 540 ; Donner v. Palmer, 51 Cal. 636 .) … (See Reclamation District No. 108 v. Evans, 61 Cal. 104 .)

Wores v. Imperial Irrigation District

193 Cal. 609 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1924

Co. v. … Co. v.

Craig v. Fry

68 Cal. 363 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1886

(Anderson, Administrator, v. Martindale, 1 East, 497; Platt on Cov., p. 123.) … Proe., sec. 950; People v. Crane, 60 Cal. 279 .) The appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial was taken too late, and the appeal must be dismissed. Appeal from order dismissed.

Baldwin v. Ellis

68 Cal. 495 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1886

(Haskell v. Haskell, 54 Cal. 262 .) … , which were accurately defined in Wells, Fargo, & Company v.

Humboldt Cty. v. Dinsmore

75 Cal. 604 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1888

It has been held that the board of supervisors, in determining matters of this kind, exercise judicial functions. (Damrell v. San Joaquin Co., 40 Cal. 158 .) … In Tehama County v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 57 , and Butte County v.