Case law

County of Los Angeles v. Byram

36 Cal. 2d 694 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1951

Strother, 74 Cal. 413 [ 16 P. 22 ], Lewis v. Widber, 99 Cal. 412 [ 33 P. 1128 ], Martin v. Fisher, 108 Cal.App. 34 [ 291 P. 276 ], Lotts v. Board of Park Commrs., 13 Cal.App.2d 625 [ 57 P.2d 215 ], and see Harrison v. … In Simpson v.

Cahill v. Colgan

3 Cal. Unrep. 622 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1892

Y. 222 ; Colusa County v. De Jarnett, 55 Cal. 373 ; Placer Co. v. Campbell (Cal.), 11 Pac. 602 . In Ousterhoudt v. Rigney, 98 N. … Proe., sec. 1038; Adams v. Haskell, 6 Cal. 476 ; McDermott v. Isbell, 4 Cal. 114 ; Argenti v. San Francisco, 30 Cal. 467 ; Lawrence v. Booth, 46 Cal. 187 ; Beach on Receivers, see. 313.

County of Santa Cruz v. McPherson

133 Cal. 282 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1901

The order of the board, duly made, constituted the “ authority of law.” In Lamberson v. … (See also McFarland v. McCowen, 98 Cal. 329 ; Colusa County v. De Jarnett, 55 Cal. 373 ; McConoughey v. Jackson, 101 Cal. 265 ; 1 McBride v. Newlin, 129 Cal. 36 .)

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.

Campbell v. Graham-Armstrong

9 Cal. 3d 482 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1973

(Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.2d 753 [ 112 P.2d 229 ].) Second. … In any event, they were on duty for the additional time required of them under the rules laid down by the governing board and, accordingly, unquestionably qualify as full-time employees. In Meyer v.

Reclamation District No. 1500 v. Riley

192 Cal. 147 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1923

(Powers v. May, 114 Cal. 207 [ 46 Pac. 6 ] ; Linden v. Case, 46 Cal. 171 ; Merriam v. Board of Supervisors, 72 Cal. 517 [ 14 Pac. 137 ].) … (In re King, supra; Grumbach v.

City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

56 Cal. 4th 1086 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2013

Delegation of Authority The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov. … County of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171, 1182-1183 [ 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 779 , 266 P.3d 287 ]; Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors (1994) 8 Cal.4th 765, 781 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 814 , 884 P.2d 645 ].)

House v. Los Angeles County

104 Cal. 73 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1894

(Scollay v. County of Butte, 67 Cal. 249 .) … (Smith v. County of Los Angeles, 99 Cal. 628 ; El Dorado County v. Meiss, 100 Cal. 268 ; People v. Johnson, 95 Cal. 472 .) The case of Lassen County v.

Taylor v. Oakland Scavenger Co.

12 Cal. 2d 310 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1938

(Barbieri v. Law, 209 Cal. 429 [ 287 Pac. 464]; Dunn v. Dufficy, 194 Cal. 383 [ 228 Pac. 1029 ]; Champagne v. A. Hamburger & Sons, 169 Cal. 683 [ 147 Pac. 954 ]; Bergen v. … (Cragg v. Los Angeles Trust Co., 154 Cal. 663, 669 [ 98 Pac. 1063 , 16 Ann. Cas. 1061]; Jacobson v. Oakland Meat etc. Co., 161 Cal. 425 [ 119 Pac. 653 , Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1194]; Quinn v.

Louis Stores, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

57 Cal. 2d 749 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1962

Soares, district liquor control administrator for the board, brought a proceeding (sometimes referred to by the parties as Soares v. … (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equalization, 51 Cal.2d 640, 647 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].)

Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler

62 Cal. 69 · California Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1882

Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 268 ; 3 Kent’s Com. 458; Hamilton Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 633 ; People v. Selfridge, 52 Cal. 331 ; T. & T. R. Co. v. Campbell, 44 id. 89; O. R. R. Co. v. O. B. & F. V. R. R. Co., 45 id. 365. … At the time that the action to which this case relates was taken by the Board of Equalization, and at the time at which the matters in controversy in Burke v.

Spangler v. Memel

7 Cal. 3d 603 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1972

In Brown v. … (Brown v. Jensen, supra, 41 Cal.2d 193, 198; original italics.)

Heath v. Manson

147 Cal. 694 · California Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1905

(See, also, City of Belton v. Turner (Tex. Civ. App.), [ 27 S. W. 831 ]; Village of Shelby v. Claggett, 46 Ohio St. 549 , [22 N. *701 E. 407]; Erie v. Schwingle, 22 Pa. St. 384, [ 60 Am. Dec. 87 ]; Evanston v. … (City of Shelbyville v. Brant, 61 Ill. App. 154 ; Shaw v. Sun Prairie, 74 Wis. 108 , [ 42 N. W. 271 ]; Furnell v. City of St. Paul, 20 Minn. 117 ; City of McLeansboro v. Trammel, 109 Ill. App. 524 ; Moore v.

In Re Shattuck

208 Cal. 6 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1929

to which her counsel devotes the larger portion of his brief in support of this petition have been answered adversely to said contentions in the two cases recently decided by this court, entitled State Bar of California v. … This principle was declared by this court in the early and leading case of Bourland v. Hildreth, 26 Cal. 161 , and has been consistently adhered to in the later decisions of this tribunal.

In re Lawrence

44 Cal. 4th 1181 · 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. 9 In Rosenkrantz, supra, 29 Cal.4th 616 , we were presented with the threshold question … As the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cogently observed in Biggs v.

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Kings County Water District

47 Cal. 2d 140 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1956

While mandamus is an appropriate remedy to test the proper exercise of discretion vested in a local board (Walker v. City of San Gabriel, 20 Cal.2d 879, 881 [ 129 P.2d 349 , 142 A.L.R. 1383 ]; Naughton v. … (c); Lindell Co. v. Board of Permit Appeals, 23 Cal.2d 303, 315 [ 144 P.2d 4 ] ; Odden v. County Foresters etc. Board, 108 Cal.App.2d 48, 49 [ 238 P.2d 23 ] ; Conroy v.

Mahoney v. Braverman

54 Cal. 565 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

■That the Legislature had the constitutional power to invest the Board of Supervisors with this authority, we regard as settled by the case of Emery v. … (See Beveridge v. Livingston, above cited.) This defect could not be cured by an appeal to the Board of Supervisors, and therefore it could not be reached by appeal. (Dougherty v. Hitchcock, 35 Cal. 523 .)

In Re Resendiz

105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 431 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 2001

. & dis. opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 261) based on immigration consequences. … (Accord, In re Alvernaz, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 933-934; see also People v. Brown (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 537, 554 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 66 ].)

Fare v. Scott K.

24 Cal. 3d 395 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1979

Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) [ 87 L.Ed. 1628 , 63 S.Ct. 1178 ]; equal protection against racial discrimination, Brown v. … Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) [ 98 L.Ed. 873 , 74 S.Ct. 686 ]; due process in civil contexts, Goss v.

Heilbron v. Sumner

186 Cal. 648 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1921

(Civic Center Assn. v. Railroad Commission, 175 Cal. 448 , [166 Pac. 351]; Morgan v. Los Angeles, 182 Cal. 301 , [ 187 Pac. 1050, 1052 ].) … In 1919 the charter was further amended by adding a new chapter to article V thereof, numbered I, providing for a “water development board.”