Case law

Quigg v. Evans

121 Cal. 546 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1898

This appointment was made under the provisions of section 8, article V, of the constitution, which reads: “When any office from any cause becomes vacant, and no mode is provided by the *550 constitution and law for filling … Rep. 677 ; Hoagland v. Sacramento, 52 Cal. 142 . We are unable to discover any infraction of these provisions in the legislation now challenged.

S. Cal. Edison Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization

220 Cal. 420 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1934

Rys. v. Johnson, 210 Cal. 138, 154, 155 [ 291 Pac. 197 ].) … Our own court has also given expression to a similar statement of the law (Payne v.

Proll v. Dunn

80 Cal. 220 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1889

By reference to the act referred to in Stratton v. … Baggett v. Dunn, 69 Cal. 75 , was a case where the claim was for a salary,—a claim which was not required to be presented to the board of examiners.

Shannon v. Cheney

156 Cal. 567 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1909

Or, as expressed in the case of San Francisco v. Anderson, 103 Cal. 70 , [ 42 Am. St. … Co. v. Conley, 144 Cal. 483 , [ 77 Pac. 1042 ].)

Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELES

11 Cal. 3d 506 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1974

Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals, supra, at pp. 772-773. See also Stoddard v. Edelman (1970) 4 Cal. App.3d 544, 549 [ 84 Cal. Rptr. 443 ]. Cf. Friends of Mammoth v. … (See Johnston v. Board of Supervisors (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, 74 [ 187 P.2d 686 ]; Kappadahl v. Alcan Pacific Co. (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 626, 634 [ 35 Cal. Rptr. 354 ].)

Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

17 Cal. 3d 699 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1976

In negotiating such agreements and amendments the board acts as the agent or representative of the employees. (Bios v. Bankers Life Co. (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 147, 150 [ 283 P.2d 744 ]; see Boseman v. … In Gear v. Webster (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 57 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 255 ], a real estate salesman joined a board of realtors and agreed to observe the board’s bylaws.

Melvin v. State

121 Cal. 16 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1898

(Gibbons v. United States, *23 8 Wall. 269 ; Clodfelter v. State, 86 N. C. 51, 53 ; 41 Am. Rep. 440 ; Chapman v. State, 104 Cal. 690 ; 43 Am. St. Rep. 158 ; Green v. State, 73 Cal. 29 ; Bourn v. … In Carver v. Braintree Mfg.

Johnson v. Fontana County Fire Protection District

15 Cal. 2d 380 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1940

(Koehler v. Holt Mfg. Co., 146 Cal. 335 [ 80 Pac. 73 ]; Baker v. Eilers Music Co., 175 Cal. 657 [ 166 Pac. 1008 ]; Gage Canal Co. v. East Riverside Water Co., 180 Cal. 204 [ 180 Pac. 332 ].) … Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and City of Los Angeles v. Mayor ( 51 Cal. App. 492 [ 197 Pac. 403 ]), the rule should not apply.

People v. Shipman

62 Cal. 2d 226 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1965

Washington State Board etc. Paroles, 357 U.S. 214 [ 78 S.Ct. 1061 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1269 ]; Draper v. … Washington, 372 U.S. 487 [ 83 S.Ct. 774 , 9 L.Ed.2d 899 ], but from the denial of a petition for a writ of coram nobis ( Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477 [ 83 S.Ct. 768 , 9 L.Ed.2d 892 ]; see McCrary 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 .

Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School District

55 Cal. 2d 224 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1961

(Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554, 561-562 [ 74 P. 44 ]; Main v. Claremont Unified School Dist., 161 Cal.App.2d 189, 192, 207 [ 326 P.2d 573 ]; Titus v. … Board of Education, 136 Cal. 245, 246 [ 68 P. 703 ]; Giguiere v. Patterson, 138 Cal.App. 167, 171-173 [ 31 P.2d 804 ]; Kistner v. Pomeroy, 84 Cal.App. 550 , 551 et seq. [ 258 P. 619 ]; see Titus v.

Allison Ranch Mining Co. v. County of Nevada

104 Cal. 161 · California Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1894

very strict rules in the matter of keeping the minutes of its proceedings, and the rule as to the matter of notice to be given the property *164 owner in such cases as this is properly stated in Spring Valley Water Works v. … Schottler, 62 Cal. 103 , as follows: “ In our opinion (as intimated in Patten v.

People ex rel. Pixley v. Lodi High School District

124 Cal. 694 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1899

Subdivision 14 of this section, as it was amended in 1895, requires the high school board to furnish to the authorities whose duty it is to levy taxes—in this case the board of supervisors (Chico etc. Board v. … It was held in Sprague v.

Ex parte Shrader

33 Cal. 279 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1867

In Coates v. … Cooper et al. v. Metropolitan Board of Health, 32 Howard P.

In Re Slayback

209 Cal. 480 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1930

Thaw) ; State v. Snell, 46 Wash. 327 [9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1191, 89 Pac. 931 ]; Ex parte Brown, 39 Wash. 160 [ 109 Am. St. Rep. 868 , 4 Ann. Cas. 488, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 540, 81 Pac. 552 ]. … (Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179 [ 51 L. Ed. 760 , 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 459].) The commitment considered by the court in the case of Brown v.

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 .)

Mardis v. McCarthy

162 Cal. 94 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1912

(Taylor v. Palmer, 3. 1 Cal. 241 .) … (DeGraff v. St. Paul etc. R. Co., 23 Minn. 144 ; Preston v. Dubuque etc. R. Co., 11 Iowa 17 .)

People v. McLain

46 Cal. 3d 97 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1988

Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, *115 538-544 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], reversed on other grounds sub nomine California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 107 S.Ct. 837 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ]]. … In conclusion, we find no Brown error. 4 F.

People v. Hoge

55 Cal. 612 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

The Board of Election Commissioners had no power to order an election of a Board of Freeholders. 2. The Board of Election Commissioners had no power to call a special election. 3. … (Dishon v. Smith, County Judge, 10 Iowa, 218 .)

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.