Case law

Pacific Palisades Ass'n v. City of Huntington Beach

196 Cal. 211 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1925

(Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 [38 A. L. R. 1479, 234 Pac. 381 ]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497 [ 234 Pac. 388 ].) … Consequently, the signing by the president is not a condition precedent to the validity of an ordinance duly passed by the board of trustees. (Commonwealth, v. Davis, 140 Mass. 485, 486 [ 4 N. E. 577 ]; Commonwealth 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 ].)

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.)

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.

Truckee & Tahoe Turnpike Road Co. v. Campbell

44 Cal. 89 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

proceedings of the Board. … (Leese v. Clark, 18 Cal. 535 ; Leese v. Clark, 20 Cal. 387 ; Bond v. Hickman, 29 Cal. 460 ; Bernal v. Lynch, 36 Cal. 135 ; Durfee v. Plaisted, 38 Cal. 80 ; Ang. & Ames on Corp., Sec. 636.)

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 .)

Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District v. Superior Court

196 Cal. 414 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1925

(Mulford v. Estudillo, 23 Cal. 94 ; Hill v. City Cab & T. Co., 79 Cal. 188 [ 21 Pac. 728 ] ; Dunn v. Dunn, 114 Cal. 210 [ 46 Pac. 5 ]; Crew v. Pratt, 119 Cal. 139 [ 51 Pac. 38 ]; Brush v. … Land Co. v.

Clute v. Loveland

68 Cal. 254 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1885

and known as a “seat in the San Francisco Stock and Exchange Board.” … (Charter v. San Francisco S. R. Co., 19 Cal. 246 ; Shorb v. Beaudry, 56 Cal. 450 ; Cornell v. Corbin, 64 Cal. 200 ; Durlcee v. StringTiam, 8 Wis. 124 .)

MacMillan Co. v. Clarke

184 Cal. 491 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1920

(People v. Lodi Sigh School List., 124 Cal. 694 , [ 57 Pac. 660 ]; Board of Education v. Board of Trustees, 129 Cal. 599 , [ 62 Pac. 173 ]; Broion v. Visalia, 141 Cal. 372 , [ 74 Pac. 1042 ].) … As is said in People v. Lodi High School District and Board of Education v. Board of Trustees, supra, this amendment was made to obviate the infirmity of the law of 1891.

People v. Edwards

93 Cal. 153 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1892

On December 15, 1879, *155 the board of supervisors appointed Edward B. Cotter, and on December 5, 1881, the board of supervisors appointed John Mason and F. C. … (See also People v. Whitman, 10 Cal. 38 ; People v. Stratton, 28 Cal. 388 ; People v. Tyrrell, 87 Cal. 479 ; State v. Johns, 3 Or. 537 ; Rightmire v. Camden, 50 N. J. L. 48; Stilsing v. Davis, 45 N. J. L. 390.)

Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELES

11 Cal. 3d 506 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1974

Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals, supra, at pp. 772-773. See also Stoddard v. Edelman (1970) 4 Cal. App.3d 544, 549 [ 84 Cal. Rptr. 443 ]. Cf. Friends of Mammoth v. … (See Johnston v. Board of Supervisors (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, 74 [ 187 P.2d 686 ]; Kappadahl v. Alcan Pacific Co. (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 626, 634 [ 35 Cal. Rptr. 354 ].)

Townsend v. Copeland

56 Cal. 612 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

The writ can only issue “ when an inferior tribunal, board, or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board, or officer ”; and was the action of the board of supervisors, in … (The Central Pacific Railroad Company v. The Board of Equalization of Placer County, 43 Cal. 365 ; Andrews v. Pratt, 44 id. 309.) Judgment reversed, and the Superior Court is hereby directed to dismiss the writ.

Midway School District v. Griffeath

29 Cal. 2d 13 · California Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1946

The case of Board of Education v. … Dist. v. De Caristo, 33 Cal.App.2d 666 [ 92 P.2d 668 ].) In Board of Education v.

Reams v. Cooley

171 Cal. 150 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1915

(Zottman v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 96 , [ 81 Am. Dec. 96 ]; Murphy v. Napa County, 20 Cal. 497 ; Nicolson Pavement Co. v. Painter, 35 Cal. 699 ; Fountain v. City of Sacramento, 1 Cal. App. 461 , [ 82 Pac. 637 ]; Shaw v. … App. 547 , [ 110 Pac. 149 ]; Richardson v. Grant Co., 27 Fed. 495 ; Peck-Williamson et al. Co. v. Steen School Tp., 30 Ind. App. 637 , [ 66 N. E. 909 ]; La France Fire Engine Co. v. Syracuse, 33 Misc. Rep. 516 , [ 68 N.

Eichman v. Escondido Union High School District

61 Cal. 2d 100 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1964

In Griggs v. … (See Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners, 32 Cal.2d 301, 304 [ 196 P.2d 20 ].)

Curtin v. Salmon River Hydraulic Gold Mining & Ditch Co.

130 Cal. 345 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1900

(Harding v. Vandewater, 40 Cal. 77 ; Thompson v. Williams, 76 Cal. 153 1 ; Smith v. Dorn, 96 Cal. 73 ; Pauly v. … In Copeland v. Johnson Mfg.

Stenocord Corp. v. City & County of San Francisco

2 Cal. 3d 984 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1970

V. … Foster Co. v.

Fourcade v. City & County of San Francisco

196 Cal. 655 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1925

(Miller v. Board of Public Works, supra; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, supra.) … (Miller v. Board of Public Works, supra; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, supra.)