Case law

Abraham v. Sims

2 Cal. 2d 698 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1935

(Buckbee v. Board of Education, 115 App. Div. 366 [ 100 N. Y. Supp. 943, 950 ], cited in Fidler v. Board of Trustees, 112 Cal. App. 296, 305 [ 296 Pac. 912 ].) … (School Code, sec. 5.500; Grigsby v. King, 202 Cal. 299, 307 [ 260 Pac. 789 ]; Owens v. Board of Education, 68 Cal. App. 403, 405, 406 [ 229 Pac. 881 ] ; La Shells v. Hench, 98 Cal.

Cope v. County of Sutter

206 Cal. 445 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1929

(Cope v. Flannery, 70 Cal. App. 738 [ 234 Pac. 845 ].) “After the decision in Cope v. … In legal contemplation, the new board of supervisors is the same board that entered into the contract. (California Highwayay Com. v. Riley, 192 Cal. 97 [ 218 Pac. 579 ]; see, also, Cope v.

Davis v. County of Los Angeles

12 Cal. 2d 412 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1938

(Franklin v. State Board of Examiners, 23 Cal. 1 ; People v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 175, 176, 221 .) There is nothing to the contrary to be inferred from In re Hoffman, 155 Cal. 114 [ 99 Pac. 517 , 132 Am. St. Rep. 75 ]. … (Grigsby v. King, 202 Cal. 299 [ 260 Pac. 789 ]; Morris v. Board of Education, 119 Cal. App. 750 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 364 , 8 Pac. (2d) 502 ].)

Skaggs v. City of Los Angeles

43 Cal. 2d 497 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1954

MacIntyre v. … It has been held, however, in both Dryden v. Board of Pension Commrs. (1936), supra, 6 Cal.2d 575, 582 , and Dillon v.

People ex rel. Fries v. Supervisors of Marin Cty.

10 Cal. 344 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

The statute provides that the writ of certiorari “shall be granted in all cases where an inferior tribunal, board, or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board, or officer … (Downer v. Lent, 6 Cal., 94 ; People v. Supervisors of El Dorado county, 8 Cal., 58 .) The next question presented is, whether the board, in its action, exceeded its jurisdiction.

San Diego & Ariz. Ry. v. State Bd. of Equalization

164 Cal. 41 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1912

In Savings & Loan Society v. … that the assessor had no power to make any changes in the assessment after he delivered his roll to the board of equalization, unless such changes were authorized by the board of supervisors under sections 3679 and 3681

Ring v. State Bar

218 Cal. 747 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1933

Conger in the action of Conger v. … This fact does not free the petitioner from the burden devolving upon him to show that the decision of the board is erroneous or unlawful. (Aydelotte v. The State Bar, supra, p. 740.)

Dufton v. Daniels

190 Cal. 577 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1923

VI, sec. 4; Scott v. Boyle, 164 Cal. 321 [ 128 Pac. 941 ]; Santa Cruz etc. Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 62 Cal. 40, 41 ; San Diego etc. Ry. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, supra; Grand Lodge, etc., v. … (Robertson v. Board of Library Trustees, etc., 136 Cal. 403, 405 [ 69 Pac. 88 ], See, also, Raisch v. Board of Education, supra; Babcock v. Goodrich., 47 Cal. 488 ; Ross v. Board of Education, 18 Cal.

Gashwiler v. Willis

33 Cal. 11 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1867

(McCullough v. Moss, 5 Den. 575 .) … So also in State v. Ancker, 2 Rich. 245 , the action of a Board illegally assembled was held to be without authority.

People Ex Rel. Chapman v. Sacramento Drainage Dist.

155 Cal. 373 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1909

(Stevenson v. Colgan, 91 Cal. 649 , [ 25 Am. St. Rep. 230 , 27 Pac. 1089 ]; Rankin v. Colgan, 115 Cal. 529 , [ 47 Pac. 357 ]; Smith v. Mathews, post, p. 752, [ 103 Pac. 199 ].) … (Board etc. of Modesto Irr. Dist. v. Tregea, 88 Cal. 334 , [ 26 Pac. 237 ].)

French v. Cook

173 Cal. 126 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1916

It has been held under very similar circumstances that the widow has a vested right from the date of death of her husband ( Kavanagh v. Board of Police Pension Fund Commrs., 134 Cal. 50 , [ 66 P. 36 ]). … Cases cited by counsel for appellants, including People v. Los Angeles, 133 Cal. 338 , [ 65 P. 749 ], and People v. Ontario, 148 Cal. 625 , 634 , [ 84 P. 205 ], have no application here.

Agard v. Valencia

39 Cal. 292 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1870

Blum, Brown and Davis. The grounds of demurrer are : First — That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. … (Blum v. Robertson, 24 Cal. 127 ; Morrison v. Rossignol, 5 Cal. 64 ; Minturn v. *302 Baylis, 33 Cal. 129 ; Story Eq. Sec. 794; Colson v. Thompson, 2 Wheat. 336 ; Kendall v. Almy, 2 Sumn. 295 .)

Nish Noroian Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.

35 Cal. 3d 726 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1984

(Labor Board v. Fant Milling Co. (1959) 360 U.S. 301, 307-309 [ 3 L.Ed.2d 1243, 1247-1249 , 79 S.Ct. 1179 ]; see also Wirtz v. … (Labor Board v.

Alexander v. Central Lumber & Mill Co.

104 Cal. 532 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1894

As was said in Gassen v. … (See, also, Reynolds v. Lincoln, 71 Cal. 183 .) In Stark v. Wellman, 96 Cal. 400 , Mallory v. Thomas, 98 Cal. 644 , and Thelin v.

Los Angeles City School District v. Odell

200 Cal. 637 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1927

(Donlon v. Jewett, 88 Cal. 530 [ 26 Pac. 370 ].) … Code, sees. 1663, 1720; Chico High School Board v. Board of Supervisors, 118 Cal. 115 [ 50 Pac. 275 ].) The decision in Richey v. Corralitos Union School Dist., 67 Cal.

Utah Construction Co. v. Richardson

187 Cal. 649 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1921

This question was passed upon in State v. … Co. v. Judson, 21 Wash. 49 , [57 L. R.

Keeler v. Superior Court

46 Cal. 2d 596 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1956

Oil Co. v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.2d 815, 825 [ 279 P.2d 35 ]; Brydonjack v. State Bar, 208 Cal. 439, 442 . [ 281 P. 1018 , 66 A.L.R. 1507]; Corum v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 67 Cal.App.2d 891, 897 [ 155 P.2d 710 ].) … In Garcia v. California Emp. Stab.

People v. Reed

5 Cal. Unrep. 957 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1898

Code, sec. 197, subd. 3; People v. Hecker, 109 Cal. 451 , 464, 30 L. R. A. 403, 42 Pac. 307 ; People v. Robertson, 67 Cal. 646 , 8 Pac. 600 . … There was no error in admitting rebutting evidence to show defendant’s bad reputation for truth: People v. Hickman, 113 Cal. 80, 87 , 45 Pac. 175 .

Dodge v. Kimple

121 Cal. 580 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1898

(Granger v. Robinson, 114 Cal. 631 , and cases there cited.) The complaint alleges that E. D. Brown contracted to erect a dwelling-house for one E. T. … Co., 80 Cal. 506 ), upon bonds (Curtiss v.

Barendt v. McCarthy

160 Cal. 680 · California Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1911

St. 103; Cochran v. McCleary, 22 Iowa 75 ; Delahanty v. Warner, 75 Ill. 185 , [ 20 Am. Rep. 237 ]; Sheridan v. Colvin, 78 Ill. 237 ; Beebe v. Robinson, 52 Ala. 66 ; and Moulton v. Reid, 54 Ala. 320 ." … The membership of the board of health of San Francisco is a "municipal affair." (People v.