Case law

Mark v. Superior Court

129 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1900

As stated in Dewey v. … And in Schwarz v.

Henne v. County of Los Angeles

129 Cal. 297 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1900

Still, as was held in People v. Board of Supervisors, 77 Cal. 136 , the value of such security should be deducted from the total value of the property. … As was said in Osborn v. Danvers, 6 Pick. 98 : “But great mischiefs would follow if we were to hold that an excess of valuation would render an assessment illegal and void.

Holley v. County of Orange

106 Cal. 420 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1895

(People v. Provines, 34 Cal. 520 .) It does not follow, however, that the authority conferred upon the board of supervisors by statute can be delegated to others. … (Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 204; Scollay v. County of Butte, 67 Cal. 249 ; Abrams v. Ervin, 9 Iowa, 87 ; Page v. Hardin, 8 B. Mon. 662 ; Lewis v. Lewis, 9 Mo. 182 ; 43 Am. Dec. 540 ; (People v.

City & County of San Francisco v. Anderson

103 Cal. 69 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1894

Respondent cites Clute v. … double taxation, and void within the principle of the case of Burke 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.

People Ex Rel. Hicks v. Stewart

132 Cal. 283 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1901

(People v. Mathewson, 47 Cal. 442 ; People v. Harvey, 58 Cal. 338 .) … (Calaveras County v. Brockway, 30 Cal. 337, 338 , citing People v. Van Slyck, 4 Cow. 297 ; Paine on Elections, secs. 606, 607, 611, 615.)

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.

Argenti v. City of San Francisco

16 Cal. 255 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

In Moodalay v. The East India Company (1 Brown Ch. … It was also held that the acts of the Board of Supervisors did not amount to a ratification of the contract, so as to bind the county.

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.

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.

Otis v. Los Angeles County

9 Cal. 2d 366 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1937

There is no merit in the contention. ’ ’ Ferguson v. Gardner, 86 Cal. … In Ryan v.

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.

Ex parte Mirande

73 Cal. 365 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1887

In People v. … (County of Amador v. Kennedy, 70 Cal. 458 .)

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 ].)

In Re Lacey

11 Cal. 2d 699 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1938

(Brydonjack v. State Bar, 208 Cal. 439, 446 [ 281 Pac. 1018 , 66 A. L. R. 1507] ; Vaughan v. State Bar, 208 Cal. 740 [ 284 Pac. 909 ].) … (Fish v. State Bar, 214 Cal. 215, 225 [ 4 Pac. (2d) 937 ]; Brydonjack v. State Bar, supra.)

Hornblower v. Duden

35 Cal. 664 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

The power of the Board cannot, as we consider, be measured by such a rule. … The point as to the power of the Board to employ other counsel than the District Attorney, is answered by the case of Smith v. The Mayor of Sacramento, 13 Cal. 533 , and nothing need be added to what is there said.

Davis v. Drew

58 Cal. 152 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

Such a course is distinctly sanctioned in O’Brien v. Chamberlain, 50 Cal. 289 . It follows from the above that the judgment and order must be affirmed, and an order will be entered to that effect. … Brown (no process having been served on him in the action), nor the sale under the execution issued on it, and notified Jordan that all the proceedings in the suit of Brown and the sale under the execution were a fraud on

Miller v. County of Kern

137 Cal. 516 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1902

(Weyse v. Crawford, 85 Cal. 196 ; Dranga v. Rowe, 127 Cal. 506 .) Boards of supervisors have power, sitting as boards of equalization, to increase or lower any individual assessment. (Pol. Code, sec. 3673; Allison etc. … Co. v. Nevada County, 104 Cal. 161 .) And the state board may increase or lower the entire assessment-roll. (Pol. Code, sec. 3692; Baldwin v. Ellis, 68 Cal. 495 .)

Caminetti v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Cal.

22 Cal. 2d 344 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1943

(See, also, Brown v. Ferdon, 5 Cal.2d 226 [ 54 P.2d 712 ]; Birkhofer v. Krumm, 27 Cal.App.2d 513 [ 81 P.2d 609 ].) It is imperative, however, that the impairment of contract rights be in the public interest. … Coombes v. Getz, 285 U.S. 434 , 52 S.Ct. 435 , 76 L.Ed. 866 ; Memphis v. United, States ex rel. Brown, 97 U.S. 293 , 24 L.Ed. 920 ; McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 , 19 S.Ct. 134 , 43 L.Ed. 382 .