Case law

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.

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 .)

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.

Gospel Army v. City of Los Angeles

27 Cal. 2d 232 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1945

(Lewis v. Quinn, 217 Cal. 410, 413 [ 19 *237 P.2d 236 ]; In re Holmes, supra; Co-operative Junk Co. v. Board of Police Commissioners, supra; Zemansky v. … Board of Education, 245 Ill. 334 [ 92 N.E. 251 , 19 Ann.Cas. 220, 29 L.R.A.N.S. 442 ] ; Board of Education of Cincinnati v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 211 [ 13 Am.Rep. 233 ]; Donahoe v. Richards, 38 Me. 379 [61 Am.Dec. 256].)

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.

Musicians Union, Local No. 6 v. Superior Court

69 Cal. 2d 695 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1968

Ry. & Motor Coach Employees v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Board (1951) 340 U.S. 383, 391 [ 95 L.Ed. 364, 374 , 71 S.Ct. 359 , 22 A.L.R.2d 874 ].) … (Allen-Bradley Local No. 1111 v. Wisconsin Bmp. Relations Board (1942) 315 U.S. 740, 748 [ 86 L.Ed. 1154, 1164 , 62 S.Ct. 820 ] ; see Youngdahl v.

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.

Mayer v. Mayer

207 Cal. 685 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1929

The more modern trend is indicated by such cases as Brown v. Scott, 140 Md. 258 [22 A. L. … The circumstances of the instant case fall far short of presenting the aggravated situation of Brown v. Scott .

People v. Holland

23 Cal. 3d 77 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1978

(See In re Brown, supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 682; People v. Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 63.) … (In re Brown, supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 683.) See, e.g., In re Brown, supra, 9 Cal.3d at page 683, footnote 6; People v. Flores (1971) 6 Cal.3d 305, 308 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 822 , 491 P.2d 406 ]; People 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.

Havens v. Dale

18 Cal. 359 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

Plaintiff deraigns title by deed from one Brown, who claimed as grantee of one Coppinger. … Hunter v. Watson, ( 12 Cal. 363 ) decides that the open, notorious possession of real estate is evidence of notice. Smith v.

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 .)

People ex rel. Flint v. Harrington

63 Cal. 257 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1883

Thus in Rex v. Monday, CoAAq). 538, Lord Mansfield, C. … (A. & A. on Corp. § 501; Cahill v. Kalamazoo Insurance Co. 2 Doug. (Mich.) 124; Sargent v.

Conger v. Gilmer

32 Cal. 75 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

the Board. … Has it been made when the President of the Board has announced the result of the ballot, or when the commission or certificate of his appointment has been made out ? In Marbury v.

Ivancich v. Davies

186 Cal. 520 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1921

Co. v. Williams, 140 Ill. 288 , [ 29 N. E. 672 ]; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Manning, 170 Ill. 420 , [ 48 N. E. 958 ].) … Co. v. Bynum, 139 Ala. 389 , [ 36 South. 736 ]; Sharrer v. Paxson et al., supra; Holloway v. Pasadena & Pacific Ry. Co., 130 Cal. 177 , [ 62 Pac. 478 ]; Seller v. Market Street Ry.

Allen v. Bd. of Trs. of Bakersfield

157 Cal. 720 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1910

(Sec. 795; Board of Education v. Board of Trustees, 129 Cal. 599, 605 , [ 62 Pac. 173, 605 ].) … Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554 , [ 74 Pac. 44 ], cited by respondents, is not in point.

County of Calaveras v. Brockway

30 Cal. 325 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1866

In the case of the People v. … (See also People v. Cook, 4 Sel don, 70.)

Miklosy v. Regents of the University of California

44 Cal. 4th 876 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 2008

(See Ohton v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 749, 765 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 111 ].) … In Palmer v.

Stewart Law & Collection Co. v. County of Alameda

142 Cal. 660 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1904

McAvoy, 86 Ind. 587 ; Board of Commissioners of Howard County v. Armstrong, 91 Ind. 528 ; The City of Indianapolis v. Vajen, 111 Ind. 240 . … In Younger v. Board of Supervisors, 68 Cal. 242 , for example, it was said that the money, being voluntarily paid, was not recoverable back by action.

San Francisco Gas Light Co. v. Dunn

62 Cal. 580 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1882

Louis v. … Louis v. Gas Light Company, 10 Rep. 109, it was held that a contract giving to a company the exclusive privilege of lighting that city for thirty years was invalid.