Case law

Keller v. Hyde

20 Cal. 593 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1862

(The People v. Lawrence, 6 Hill, 244 .) The defendant’s answer shows that the warrants in question were drawn on a demand for printing the delinquent tax list, under a contract made by the Board of Supervisors. … But in the case of Randall v.

Ardon v. City of Los Angeles

52 Cal. 4th 241 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2011

(See Schoderbek v. Carlson (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1033 [property tax statute]; Lattin v. Franchise Tax Board (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 377, 381 [income tax statute]; Santa Barbara Optical Co. v. … (See Batt v.

In Re Potter

164 Cal. 735 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1913

(United States v. Moody, 164 Fed. 269 ; United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506 , [ 55 L. Ed. 563 , 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 480].) … Code, sec. 325 ; Swamp Land etc. v. Glide, 112 Cal. 90 , [ 44 Pac. 451 ].)

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 .)

Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc.

17 Cal. 4th 93 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1998

Opinion BROWN, J. … In Board of Education v. Rice (1911) App. Cas. 179, 182, Lord Halsbury, describing the duties of a school board in resolving a claim of salary discrimination, wrote: “I need not add that. . .

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.

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.

People v. Eureka Lake & Yuba Canal Co.

48 Cal. 143 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

.: The sixth section of the “Act to create a Board of Supervisors,” etc., (Hittell Gen. L. 6,975) provided: “The Clerk shall keep a full and correct record of all the proceedings of the Board, etc. … (The State v. the W. U. T. Co. 4 Nevada, 344.) Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith. Neither Mr. Chief Justice Wallace nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.

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.

People ex rel. Sweet v. Ward

107 Cal. 236 · California Supreme Court · May 7, 1895

(People v. Edwards, 93 Cal. 153 .) … (State v. Bemenderfer, 96 Ind. 374 ; State v. Seay, 64 Mo. 89 ; 27 Am. Rep. 206 ; Commonwealth v. Hanley, 9 Pa. St. 513; Gosman v. State, 10 Ind. 206 ; People v.

Waterloo Turnpike Road Co. v. Cole

51 Cal. 381 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1876

(San Francisco v. Spring Valley Water Works, 48 Cal. 493 .) … Company v. Campbell ( 44 Cal. 89 ). But the cases are not analogous.

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.

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.