Case law

Coulter v. Pool

187 Cal. 181 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1921

(Knox v. Los Angeles County, 58 Cal. 59 ; Mechem on Public Offices, sec. 4; Hartigan v. Board, 49 W. Va. 14 , [ 38 S. … (Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 219 , [ 33 Pac. 66 ]; Board v. State, 26 Okl. 366 , [ 109 Pac. 563 ]; State v. Riordan, 24 Wis. 484 .)

Power v. May

123 Cal. 147 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1898

Appellant claims that the powers of boards of supervisors to employ counsel have been greatly restricted by the decision in Merriam v. Barnum, 116 Cal. 619 . … of the board.

Scollay v. County of Butte

67 Cal. 249 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1885

signed was ratified by the board. … Code.) *254 In Hornblower v. Duden, 35 Cal. 660 , it was held, upon the authority of Smith v.

Flores v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc.

55 Cal. 2d 736 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1961

California Horse Rocing Board, 31 Cal.2d 401, 407-408 [ 189 P.2d 17 , 3 A.L.R.2d 90 ]; Pacific Turf Club, Inc. v. … The delegation of such rule-making power to the racing board, and the delegating legislation, was upheld in Sandstrom v. California Horse Racing Board, supra, 31 Cal.2d 401, 413 .

Lent v. Tillson

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

In Boorman v. … In Palmer v.

People v. Contreras

229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 249 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 2018

(E.g., Bunch v. Smith (6th Cir. 2012) 685 F.3d 546, 552; Lucero v. People (Colo. 2017) 394 P.3d 1128, 1133; State v. Brown (La. 2013) 118 So.3d 332, 342; Willbanks v. … Likewise, in a filing with the federal court overseeing the Brown v.

McLaughlin v. Knobloch

161 Cal. 676 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1911

Manning v. … Den, 90 Cal. 610 , [ 27 Pac. 435 ]; Capron v. Hitchcock, 98 Cal. 427 , [ 33 Pac. 431 ]; Frick v. Morford, 87 Cal. 576 , [ 25 Pac. 764 ]; Warren v. Chandos, 115 Cal. 382 , [ 47 Pac. 132 ]; Chase v.

Pacific Electric Ry. Co. v. Rolkin

164 Cal. 154 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1912

A protest filed later has no effect, and does not require the state board to revise or alter its action in placing such property on the roll as operative property, or to dispose of the protest in any way.

Flethez v. San Bernardino Co. Employees Retirement Assn.

214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2017

Because a county retirement board is “required to administer the retirement system „in a manner to best provide benefits to the participants of the plan,” (McIntyre v. … In Mass v.

Hayes v. Handley

182 Cal. 273 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1920

(Gassner v. McCarthy, 160 Cal. 82 , [ 116 Pac. 73 ]; Mardis v. McCarthy, 162 Cal. 94 , [ 121 Pac. 389 ]; Thompson v. Hance, 174 Cal. 572 , [ 163 Pac. 1021 ].) … (Meuser v. Risdon, 36 Cal. 239, 244 .) But the publication of such notices was mandatory upon the board and no discretion in the matter was left in that body.

Reclamation Dist. No. 124 v. Gray

95 Cal. 601 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1892

board of supervisors, and upon an order of that board appointing commissioners of assessment anterior to the approval of the creation or validating act of the legislature set out in the plaintiff’s complaint. … The district certainly was a public corporation from the date of the legislative act, for it was said in People 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 ].)

Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 747 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2000

Opinion BROWN, J. … i.e., compensation in damages for any losses caused by the board’s statutory violation.

Fascination, Inc. v. Hoover

39 Cal. 2d 260 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1952

California Horse Racing Board, 16 Cal.2d 164 [ 105 P.2d 110 ]; Irvine v. State Board of Equalization, 40 Cal.App.2d 280, 285 [ 104 P.2d 847 ]; Trans-Oceanic Oil Corp. v. … State Board of Equalization, 29 Cal.2d 125 [ 173 P.2d 545 ]; Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., 26 Cal.2d 716 [ 160 P.2d 816 ] ; Bannerman v. Boyle, 160 Cal. 197 [ 116 P. 732 ]; Welch v.

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.

Kern v. City of Long Beach

29 Cal. 2d 848 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1947

City of Oakland, 60 Cal.App.2d 546, 550 [ 141 P.2d 4 ] ; Jordan v. Retirement Board, 35 Cal.App.2d 653, 657 [ 96 P.2d 973 ] ; Brooks v. Pension Board, 30 Cal.App.2d 118, 120-121 , cf. 123 [ 85 P.2d 956 ] ; Klench v. … (See Whitehead v. Davie, 189 Cal. 715, 717 [ 209 P. 1008 ]; Board of Directors v. Nye, 8 Cal.App. 527, 545 [ 97 P. 208 ] ; Talbott v.

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.

County of Alameda v. Evers

136 Cal. 132 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1902

(Colusa, County v. DeJarnett, 55 Cal. 373 ; McFarland v. McCowen, 98 Cal. 329 ; McConoughey v. Jackson, 101 Cal. 265 ; 1 L amberson v. Jefferds, 118 Cal. 365 ; McBride v. Newlin, 129 Cal. 36 ; County of Santa Cruz v. … McPherson, 133 Cal. 283 ; Barto v. Board of Supervisors, 135 Cal. 494 .) It follows that the ruling of the court was correct, and the judgment should be affirmed. Haynes, C , and Gray, C., concurred.

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.

Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc.

17 Cal. 4th 93 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1998

Opinion BROWN, J. … In Board of Education v. Rice (1911) App. Cas. 179, 182, Lord Halsbury, describing the duties of a school board in resolving a claim of salary discrimination, wrote: “I need not add that. . .