Case law

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.

Edmonds v. County of Los Angeles

40 Cal. 2d 642 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1953

However, they have appealed from the judgment in the companion case, Edmonds v. Board of Supervisors, L. A. … I. 232 [ 165 A. 778 ] ; Amero v. Board of Appeal of City of Gloucester, 283 Mass. 45 [ 186 N.E. 61 ]; cf. DeFelice v.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Hines v. Miller

122 Cal. 517 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1898

(Helm v. Chapman, 66 Cal. 291 ; Silvester v. Coe etc. Min. Co., 80 Cal. 512 .) … In Evans v.

Alta Silver Mining Co. v. Alta Placer Mining Co.

78 Cal. 629 · California Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1889

The board must be “ duly assembled.” (Harding v. Vandewater, 40 Cal. 78 .) And their transactions should *633 be recorded. (Civ. Code,sec. 377; Southern Cal. Ass’n v. Bustamente, 52 Cal. 192 .) … The directors when, not acting as a board have not the necessary power. (Gashwiler v. Willis, 33 Cal. 18 ; 91 Am. Dec. 607 .) The absence of á resolution of the board renders the instrument invalid. (Southern Cal.

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.

People Ex Rel. Lawlor v. Williamson

135 Cal. 415 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1902

of members of the board of health of the city and county of San Francisco. … The members of this board have been held to be state officers. (Ex parte Kenney, 84 Cal. 304 ; People v. Perry, 79 Cal. 110 .)

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 .)

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.

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. Latimer

160 Cal. 716 · California Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1911

That certificate showed that on August 5, 1909, the board of supervisors of said county, sitting as a board of equalization, had before it for consideration and action the matter of directing the assessor of said county to … It has been held, as in Crocker v.

City of Oakland v. Southern Pacific Co.

131 Cal. 226 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1900

In San Francisco v. … Bank v. Board of Equalization, 97 Cal. 325 , it is said: “The board had no power to order a new assessment to be made without evidence.”

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.

Hayne v. City & County of San Francisco

174 Cal. 185 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1917

In Mardis v. … E. 164 ], Swenson v. Board, 95 Minn. 161 , [ 103 N. W. 895 ], and Hanscom v. Omaha, 11 Neb. 37 , [ 7 N. W. 739 ].