Case law

In Re Brown

9 Cal. 3d 612 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1973

The court in People v. … In Brown there were extensive instructions given on freedom of speech.

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.”

Rock v. State Bar

55 Cal. 2d 724 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1961

(Sturr v. … (Hatch v. State Bar, ante, pp. 127, 128 [1] [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 808 , 357 P.2d 1064 ] ; Sullivan v. State Bar, 50 Cal.2d 491, 500 [1] [ 326 P.2d 138 ]; Webb v. State Bar, 47 Cal.2d 866, 868 [1] [ 306 P.2d 458 ]; Bus. & Prof.

Porter v. Haight

45 Cal. 631 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

In Jenkins v. … In Kendall v. Stokes, 3 Howard, 98 , Taney, C.

Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District v. Riley

199 Cal. 668 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1926

This was expressly so held by the appellate tribunal in the case of Argyle Dredging Co. v. Chambers, 40 Cal.App. 332 -342, [ 181 P. 84 ], and also in the case of Reclamation Board v. … It was so expressly declared in the cases of Argyle Dredging Co. v. Chambers and Reclamation Board v. Chambers, supra, which, as we have seen, have met with the approval of this court.

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.

McClain v. Sav-On Drugs

244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 138 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2019

McKesson Corp. v. … Name of Opinion McClain v.

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.

Emery v. Bradford

29 Cal. 75 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

(Parks v. Boston, 8 Pick. 225 ; Miller v. Board Sup. Sacramento Co., 25 Cal. 97 .) Yet these particular duties are not such as are usually devolved upon Courts of justice. … Hadley, 8 Met. 194 ; Williams v. Holden, 4 Wend. 227, 228 ; Banton v. Neilson, 3 John. 475 , 476; Windsor v. Field, 1 Conn. 284 .) Appeal to the Board of Supervisors from the decision of Superintendent.

Lent v. Tillson

72 Cal. 404 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1887

In Boorman v. … In Palmer v.

Stevens v. Industrial Acc. Com.

179 Cal. 592 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1919

Brown, following Lindlaw, caught him as he fell. … (Western Indemnity Co. v. Pillsbury, 170 Cal. 686 , [ 151 Pac. 398 ].) *594 On this point the evidence seems crystal clear.

Cooper v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners

35 Cal. 2d 242 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1950

(See People v. … Code, 2372 [fn. 10] ; King v. Board of Medical Examiners (1944), supra, 65 Cal.App.2d 644, 652 ; see, also, Fuller v. Board of Medical Examiners (1936), 14 Cal.App.2d 734, 737 [ 59 P.2d 171 ].)

Hewes v. Reis

40 Cal. 255 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1870

(See Himmelmann v. … The action complained of is that of the Board itself, in letting the contract without giving the notice required bj law. It would be absurd to provide an appeal from the Board to itself.

People v. Harris

9 Cal. 4th 407 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1994

(People v. … (See People v.

Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Ass'n v. City of Carson

35 Cal. 3d 184 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1983

In making its determination, the Board is directed to consider 12 specified, but nonexclusive, relevant factors. In Birkenfeld v. … Dealers v. National etc.

Regents of University of California v. Superior Court

3 Cal. 3d 529 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1970

Fargo (1924) 41 Idaho 432 [242 P. 297, 301] (bank as public depositary); Board of Water Engineers v. … Briscoe (Tex.Civ.App. 1930) 35 S.W.2d 804, 809 (state board held to be a “head of a department of state government”); see also Board of Conference Claimants v.

Poole v. Orange County Fire Authority

61 Cal. 4th 1378 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2015

(See Southern California Edison Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1972) 7 Cal.3d 652, 659.) … (See Horwich v.

Young v. Hoagland

212 Cal. 426 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1931

(Humboldt Oil Co. v. Hoagland, 70 Cal. App. 454 [ 233 Pac. 404 ].) The service of summons in the present action was had only upon the defendants Hoagland and Prentice. … (Hillwig v. Boyer, 81 Cal. App. 763, 771 [ 254 Pac. 662 ].)

Dougherty v. Rosenberg

62 Cal. 32 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1882

V. B. Henarie for the enforcement of certain assessment liens against each of three several lots of land owned by said persons respectively. … (Browne on the Statute of Frauds, 279.)