Case law

Lassen County v. Shinn

88 Cal. 510 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1891

, and did deceive and mislead and induce the board, to make the order, when it would not otherwise have done so; that before that time the supreme court of the state had decided, in the case of Yolo County v. … (Smith v. Mayor of Sacramento, 13 Cal. 533 ; Hornblower v. Duden, 35 Cal. 670 .)

People ex rel. San Francisco & San Joaquin Railway Co. v. Craycroft

111 Cal. 544 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1896

Every franchise or privilege to erect or lay telegraph wires, to construct or operate railroads along or upon any public street or highway, or to exercise any other privilege whatever hereafter proposed to be granted by the board … Any member of a board of supervisors or other ( governing body who by his vote violates, or attempts to j violate, any of the provisions of the act is guilty of a misdemeanor and of malfeasance in office, for which he may

In Re Marriage of Bonds

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 252 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 2000

(See Lutgert v. … (d); Askew v.

Dillingham v. Welch

179 Cal. 656 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1919

Smith, 133 Cal. 106 , [ 65 Pac. 309 ] , Haughawout v. Raymond, 148 Cal. 311 , [ 83 Pac. 53 ], Chase v. Scheerer, 136 Cal. 251 , [ 66 Pac. 768 ], and McCaleb v. Dreyfus, 156 Cal. 204 , [ 103 Pac. 924 ]. … (Cake v. City of Los Angeles, 164 Cal. 705 , [ 130 Pac. 723 ].) In Petaluma Rock Co. v. Smith, 23 Cal.

People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior Court

14 Cal. 4th 294 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1996

Younger v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 30, 42-44 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 122 , 544 P.2d 1322 ]; People v. … J., Kennard, J., Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., concurred. All statutory references are to this code, unless otherwise indicated.

French v. Rishell

40 Cal. 2d 477 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1953

Defendants rely on Schmidt v. … Under the city charter, the pension board acts as an agent of the city, and, in this representative capacity, it is bound by the commission’s decision if the city is bound. (Johnson v. Fontana County F.P.

Thomas v. Pridham

171 Cal. 98 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1915

However, the case of Mardis v. … In the very recent case of Hunt v.

Ex Parte Young

154 Cal. 317 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1908

(See, also, Mayhew v. District of Gay Head, 95 Mass. 129 ; City of Logansport v. Crockett, 64 Ind. 319 ; Weir v. … So in Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U.

County of San Luis Obispo v. Hendricks

71 Cal. 242 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1886

(People v. Seymour, 16 Cal. 332 ; S. C., 76 Am. Dec. 521 ; Perry v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 351 ; Guy v. Washburn, 23 Cal. 116 ; City of Oakland v. Whipple, 39 Cal. 115 .) … (Dye v. Dye, 11 Cal. 163 ; Himmelman v. Danos, 35 Cal. 448 .)

Calderon v. City of Los Angeles

4 Cal. 3d 251 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1971

(Wiltsie v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 65 Cal. 2d 314, 315-316 ; Miller v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 63 Cal.2d 343, 350 ; Silver v. Brown (1965) 63 Cal.2d 27 ,0, 279. *271 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 308 , 450 P.2d 132 ].) … (Silver v. Brown, supra, 63 Cal.2d 270, 279 .)

Estate of Johnson

139 Cal. 532 · California Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1903

(Brown v. Ohio Valley Ry. Co., 79 Fed. 176 ; Red River Valley etc. Co. v. Craig, 181 U. S. 548 ; United States v. Moriarity, 106 Fed. 886 .) … And for further instances reference may be made to Wiley v. Palmer, 14 Ala. 627 ; Fechheimer v. City of Louisville, 84 Ky. 306 ; McGuire v. Tax Collector, 32 La. Ann. 832 ; State ex rel. Hoadley v. Board Ins.

Wulfjen v. Dolton

24 Cal. 2d 878 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1914

Proc., § 581 ; Brown v. Sterling Furniture Co., 175 Cal. 563 [ 166 P. 322 ]; McColgan v. Jones, Hubbard Donnel Inc., 11 Cal.2d 243 [ 78 P.2d 1010 ]; Lewis v. … On June 20, 1938, the defendants Dolton, Potts and King constituted the entire board of directors of the corporation.

County of Los Angeles v. Department of Social Welfare

41 Cal. 2d 455 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1953

Board of Medical Examiners, 82 Cal.App.2d 709, 717 [ 187 P.2d 116 ] ; Ware v. Retirement Board, 65 Cal.App.2d 781 [ 151 P.2d 549 ] ; People v. … Board of Soc. Welfare v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.2d 81, 90 [ 162 P.2d 630 ] ; Board of Soc. Welfare v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.2d 98, 101 [ 162 P.2d 627 ].)

Schnabel v. Superior Court

5 Cal. 4th 704 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1993

In Meyer v. … (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 702, 707-709 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 524 ] [privilege applies to income tax records of new spouse in litigation between former spouses involving child support payments]; Brown v.

Ryan v. Byram

4 Cal. 2d 596 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1935

(Hellman v. City of Los Angeles, 147 Cal. 653 [ 82 Pac. 313 ]; Vernon Parish Lumber Co. v. Word, 146 La. 1068 [ 84 So. 358 ]; Engstad v. Dinnie, 8 N. D. 1 [ 76 N. W. 292 ]; People v. Day, 277 Ill. 543 [ 115 N. … E. 288 ]; Kershaw v. City of Willamina, 119 Or. 543 [ 250 Pac. 235 ]; Webb v. Strobach, 143 Mo. App. 459 [ 127 S. W. 680 ].)

City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Young

2 Cal. 3d 259 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1970

Merkley (1939) 12 Cal.2d 543, 547 [ 86 P.2d 89 ]), that attempts to get prior approval of conduct is "frowned upon" ( Brown v. Board of Police Commrs. (1943) 58 Cal. … Brown (1960) 185 Cal. App.2d 626, 628 [ 8 Cal. Rptr. 518 ].) The same rationale applies to this financial disclosure law.

Crandall v. Amador County

20 Cal. 72 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1862

(Neilson v. Commercial Mutual Insurance Co., 3 Duer, 463 .) … (The People v. Thompson, 25 Barb. 73 .) The case of San Francisco Gas Company v. The Board of Supervisors of San Francisco County ( 11 Cal. 42 ) has no application.

In re Shaputis

44 Cal. 4th 1241 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 2008

The Governor’s power to review a decision of the Board is set forth in article V, section 8, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution. 17 “[T]he governing statute provides that the Board must grant parole unless it … V For the reasons discussed above, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed. Kennard, I., Werdegar, J., and Moreno, J., concurred. The Board of Parole Hearings replaced the Board of Prison Terms in July 2005.

San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. County of Stanislaus

155 Cal. 21 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1908

Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 441 , [23 Sup. Ct. 571].) … Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739 , [19 Sup. Ct. 804].)

People Ex Rel. Attorney-General v. Wheeler

136 Cal. 652 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1902

(Ford v. Harbor Commissioners, 81 Cal. 37 ; Farrell v. Board of Trustees, 85 Cal. 415 .) … II, sec. 5; Ventura v. Clay, 112 Cal. 70 ; County of El Dorado v. Meiss, 100 Cal. 274 ; Farrell v. Board of Trustees, 85 Cal. 415 -416; County of Los Angeles v. Lopez, 104 Cal. 258 ; People v.