Case law

Dean v. Davis

51 Cal. 406 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1876

(Jones v. Dana, 24 Barb. 395 .) To the same effect are McFarlan v. T. Ins. Co., 4 Denio, 392 ; Doyle v. Peerless P. Co., 44 Barb. 239 ; B. & A. R. R. Co. v. Cary, 24 N. Y. 75 ; Wright v. Shelby R. Co., 16 B. … In Savings and Loan Society v. Austin ( 46 Cal. 448 ), and in Houghton v.

Spaulding v. North San Francisco Homestead & Railroad

87 Cal. 40 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1890

. *42 Mulligan v. Smith and Kahn v. … This, we are convinced, presents a different case from that of Mulligan v. Smith, 59 Cal. 206 ; affirmed in Kahn v. Board, 79 Cal. 388 .

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.

Mines v. Del Valle

201 Cal. 273 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1927

(Mobley v. Board of Public Works, 44 Cal. App. 167, 173, 174 [ 186 Pac. 412 ].) … In support of this contention they cite the case of Osburn v.

Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. Quinn

54 Cal. 2d 507 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1960

(Security-First National Bank v. Board of Supervisors, 35 Cal.2d 323, 327 [ 217 P.2d 948 ] ; Vista Irr. Dist. v. Board of Supervisors, 32 Cal.2d 477, 478 [ 196 P.2d 926 ] ; Sherman v. … Star-Kist attempts to distinguish Security-First National Bank v. Board of Supervisors, supra, and Vista Irr. Dist. v.

In Re Lara

1 Cal. 3d 486 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1969

Browns (May A. Brown and Shirley M. Brown), who were occasionally questioned without mention of their given names. In each instance, however, a fair reading of the context indicates which Mrs. … Brown was speaking at the time.

United States v. State

25 Cal. 2d 697 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1944

In the case of Hamilton v. Brown, 161 US. 256 [16 S. … Smith v. Board of Commissioners, 132 Kan. 233 [ 294 P. 915 ] (certiorari denied, 283 U.S. 855 [ 51 S.Ct. 648 , 75 L.Ed. 1462 ]).)

Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino

29 Cal. 2d 332 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1946

(Acker v. Baldwin, 18 Cal.2d 341, 344 [ 115 P.2d 455 ]; Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477, 490 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ]; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497 [ 234 P. 388 ]; see Otis v. … (See Rehfeld v. City etc. of San Francisco, 218 Cal. 83 [ 21 P.2d 419 ] Feraut v. City of Sacramento, 204 Cal. 687 [ 269 P. 537 ]; Magruder v. City of Redwood, 203 Cal. 665 [ 265 P. 806 ]; Brown v.

Doyle v. Jordan

200 Cal. 170 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1926

Board of Supervisors, 178 Cal. 628 [ 174 Pac. 30 ], and Covell v. Lee, 71 Cal. … (Vernon v. Board of Supervisors, 142 Cal. 513, 516 [ 76 Pac. 253 ].)

Metcalf v. County of Los Angeles

24 Cal. 2d 267 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1944

The fact that an exception might have been granted or denied in the discretion of the board of supervisors had application been made (Rubin v. Board of Directors, 16 Cal.2d 119, 126 [ 104 P.2d 1041 ] ; Regan v. … (Rubin v. Board of Directors, 16 Cal.2d 119 [ 104 P.2d 1041 ]; Skalko v. City of Sunnyvale, 14 Cal.2d 213 [ 93 P.2d 93 ].)

People v. Woods

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 88 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1999

Brown, supra, 460 U.S. at p. 743 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 ; see Florida v. … (See Brown v. Texas (1979) 443 U.S. 47, 51 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 ; cf. Florida v.

Greenebaum v. Davis

131 Cal. 146 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1900

To this point he cites Brown v. Willis, 67 Cal. 235 , and Hefner v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 123 U. S. 747 , and other cases. … Justice Temple cited Brown v.

Buckman v. Hatch

139 Cal. 53 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1903

Proc., sec. 434; Hurley v. Ryan, 119 Cal. 71 ; Bane v. Peerman, 125 Cal. 220 ; Locke v. Klunker, 123 Cal. 231 ; Hopkins v. Warner, 109 Cal. 133 ; Fay v. Reed, 128 Cal. 357 .) … (Schwicsau v. Mahon, 128 Cal. 114 ; Williamson v. Joyce, 137 Cal. 107 .)

People ex rel. Flint v. Harrington

63 Cal. 257 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1883

Thus in Rex v. Monday, CoAAq). 538, Lord Mansfield, C. … (A. & A. on Corp. § 501; Cahill v. Kalamazoo Insurance Co. 2 Doug. (Mich.) 124; Sargent v.

Cal Fire Local 2881 v. Cal. Pub. Employees' Retirement System

California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2019

J. 1815, 1821-1822 (Sveen); San Francisco Taxpayers Assn v. Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571, 584; see Allen v. Board of Administrators (1983) 34 Cal.3d 114, 119.) … (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 28, fn. 12; Betts v. Board of Administration, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 863; Kern v.  CAL FIRE LOCAL 2881 v.

Riverside County Sheriff's Department v. Stiglitz

60 Cal. 4th 624 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2014

The department then filed a supplemental brief citing the recent case of Brown v. Valverde (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1531 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 429 ] (Brown). … (Brown, at pp. 1555-1557.)

Ward v. San Diego School District

203 Cal. 712 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1928

"To the same effect are City of San Diego v. Dauer, 97. Cal. 442 [ 32 Pac. 561 ]; Hancock v. Board of Education of the City of Santa Barbara, 140 Cal. 554 [ 74 Pac. 44 ]; Los Angeles City School Dist. v. … v.

Jankey v. Song Koo Lee

55 Cal. 4th 1038 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2012

Levine 10 (2009) 555 U.S. 555, 565; Brown v. Mortensen, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 1059- 1060.) … (Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (1996) 518 U.S. 470, 485; accord, Brown, at p. 1060.)

Biggart v. Lewis

183 Cal. 660 · California Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1920

(Frost v. … (Jacks v. Taylor, supra.) The question here raised of the power to attack the validity of an allowance of a claim by a board of supervisors is similar to the question considered in the case of Walton v.

Rhoda v. Alameda Cty.

52 Cal. 350 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

(Himmelman v. Danos, 35 Cal. 448 .) Again, it is not alleged that any claim was presented to the Board for $5,000. H. JBJ. W Clarke, for the Respondent. … The allegation of presentation of the claim to the Board of Supervisors and its rejection is sufficient, under case of Alien v. County of Alameda, 43 Cal. 272 .