Case law

People ex rel. Alexander v. Swift

28 Cal. 397 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1865

.) *399 The warrant thus drawn was presented to the President of the Board of Trustees for his signature. He refused to sign it, and hence this application. … The President of the Board of Trustees is the chief officer of the corporation whose duty it is to supervise the conduct and acts of its subordinate officers.

Merced County v. Cook

120 Cal. 275 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1898

Lassen County v. Shinn, 88 Cal. 510 , is probably the first, and it has been said in the very recent case of Merriam v. … In Lamberson v.

Brotsky v. State Bar

57 Cal. 2d 287 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1962

Dec. 295 ] ; Barton v. State Bar, 209 Cal. 677, 680-681 [289 P. 818] ; Brydonjack v. State Bar, 208 Cal. 439, 443 [ 281 P. 1018 , 66 A.L.R. 1507 ]). … Proc., § 1881, subd. 5 ; Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.2d 548 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 109 , 354 P.2d 637 ]).

Shealor v. City of Lodi

23 Cal. 2d 647 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1944

Commrs., 134 Cal. 50 [ 66 P. 36 ]; Nicols v. Police Pension Fund Commrs., 1 Cal.App. 494 [ 82 P. 557 ] ; Klench v. Board of Pension Fd. Commrs., 79 Cal.App. 171 [ 249 P. 46 ]; Frisbee v. … (See, also, Simmons v. Board of Police etc.

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.

Nickerson v. San Bernardino

179 Cal. 518 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1918

This whole subject is considered in the case of Hopping v. City of Richmond, 170 Cal. 605 , [ 150 Pac. 977 ], and reference is made to this authority for further discussion of the subject. … of the board to act in the matter (Winn 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.

Kennedy v. Ross

28 Cal. 2d 569 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1946

Fund. v. … (See Crawford v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 200 Cal. 318, 334 [ 253 P. 725 ] ; Miller v. Boyle, supra, 43 Cal.App. at p. 43; Powell 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.

Van Denburgh v. Goodfellow

19 Cal. 2d 217 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1941

(Birkett v. Columbia Bank, 195 U. S. 345 [25 Sup. Ct. 38, 49 L. Ed. 231 ]; Brown v. Tropp, supra; Reynolds v. Whittemore, 99 Me. 108 [ 58 Atl. 415 ].) … (Brown v. Tropp, supra; Birkett v. Columbia Bank, supra.) Since the motion by defendants to quash the execution is a special proceeding (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 23; Murphy v. Davids, 55 Cal.

People v. Smith

93 Cal. 445 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1892

(People v. Kennedy, 39 N. Y. 245 ; Cooper v. State, 23 Tex. 331 ; People v. Westlake, 62 Cal. 303 .) … the other *448 hand, the theory of the prosecution seems to have been, that the defendant fired the first shot, and then turned and ran, and while running toward the door was shot by the deceased; and in this connection, Brown

People v. Allison

48 Cal. 3d 879 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 1989

As next shown, there was no prejudicial Brown error (People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 412 ) in this case. 4. … (People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 544, fn. 17 .)

Bruch v. Colombet

104 Cal. 347 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1894

In regard to this section it was said in Kennedy v. … (See Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 221 .)

Lowenberg v. Greenebaum

21 L.R.A. 399 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1893

But there is not in any subdivision of section 542 a method provided for attaching such a thing as this seat in a stock board. In Pacific Bank v. Robinson, 57 Cal. 523 ; 40 Am. … The only case directly in point cited by counsel on either side is that of Pancoast v. Gowen, 93 Pa. St. 71.

People v. Jackson

59 Cal. 2d 468 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1963

(People v. Brown, 55 Cal.2d 64, 68 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 816 , 357 P.2d 1072 ] ; People v. Shepherd, 200 Cal.App.2d 306, 311 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 234 ]; People v. Blake, 179 Cal.App.2d 246, 253-254 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 749 ].) … In People 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 .)

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.

Dupuy v. Superior Court

15 Cal. 3d 410 · California Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1975

(See People v. St. Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 537-538 (15) [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc. v. Superior Court, 258 Cal.App.2d 65, 69-70 [5] [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 353 ].) … Franchise Tax Board, 18 Cal.App.3d 363, 370 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 717 ].) Procedural due process does not require judicial determination of tax liability before collection of a tax (Phillips 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.

Hill v. Hill

23 Cal. 2d 82 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1943

Brown, 83 Cal.App. 74 [ 256 P. 595 ]; Boland v. Boland, 7 Cal.App.2d 401 [ 46 P.2d 238 ] ; Robertson v. Robertson, 34 Cal.App.2d 113 [ 93 P.2d 175 ]; 3 C.J. 245; 9 R.C.L. 524; 7 Minn.L.Rev. 592.) As said in Brown v. … Respondent also cites Brown v.