Case law

People v. Wash

6 Cal. 4th 215 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1993

They hired defendant for $100 per week plus room and board. Defendant stayed in the small trailer on the ranch. … (People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 206-207 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 720 , 807 P.2d 949 ]; People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 528-529 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ]; People v.

Gilles v. Department of Human Resources Development

11 Cal. 3d 313 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1974

See Hays v. Finch (W.D.Pa. 1969) 306 F.Supp. 115 ; Resnikoff v. Gardner (N.D.Fla. 1968) 290 F.Supp. 638, 641 ; Blume v. Gardner (W.D.Mich. 1966) 262 F.Supp. 405, 419 , affd. 397 F.2d 809 ; Gettinger v. … Co. v. Cal. Emp.

Silva v. Mercier

33 Cal. 2d 704 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1949

(Hanes v. Coffee, 212 Cal. 777 [ 300 P. 963 ]; Stetson v. Orland Oil Syndicate, Ltd., 42 Cal.App.2d 139 [ 108 P.2d 463 ]; *710 Friedlander v. … Stanley Productions, 24 Cal.App.2d 677 [ 76 P.2d 145 ] ; see, Abraham Lehr, Inc. v. Cortez, 57 Cal.App.2d 973 [ 135 P.2d 684 ]; Johnson 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.

DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara

55 Cal. 4th 983 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 2012

(Life v. … City of Rochester (Minn. 1975) 231 N.W.2d 275, 276; Kirkpatrick v. City of Glendale (Mo. Ct.App. 2003) 99 S.W.3d 57; Ferrer v. Jackson County Board of Supervisors (Miss. 1999) 741 So.2d 216; Myears v.

Harney v. Heller

47 Cal. 15 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

In Emery v. San Francisco Gas Company, ( 28 Cal. 376 ,) the street was to be macadamized, and to have such incidental grading done upon it as was necessary for that purpose. … Second—The decision of the Board upon the remonstrance is made final and conclusive.

Flethez v. San Bernardino Co. Employees Retirement Assn.

214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2017

Because a county retirement board is “required to administer the retirement system „in a manner to best provide benefits to the participants of the plan,” (McIntyre v. … In Mass 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.”

Skidmore v. West

186 Cal. 212 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1921

The case of County of Humboldt v. … While the law was in this condition, the case of House v. Los Angeles Co., 104 Cal. 73 , [ 37 Pac. 796 ], was decided.

Scheafer v. Herman

172 Cal. 338 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1916

(Croly v. Board of Trustees of Sacramento, 119 Cal. 229, 233 , [ 51 Pac. 323 ]; Coffey v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. 525, 535 , [ 82 Pac. 75 ]; Binan v. Superior Court, 6 Cal. App. 217, 222 , [ 91 Pac. 806 ].) … This claim is based upon section 7 of chapter V of article XI of the charter. Chapter V relates to the recall.

Sarver v. County of Los Angeles

156 Cal. 187 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1909

Co. v. Comrs. etc., 68 Fed. 171 .] … That such patented devices may be considered, and, indeed, called for by the board of supervisors, is well settled. (Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Painter, 35 Cal. 697 ; Dunne v. Altschul, 57 Cal. 474 .)

Wysinger v. Crookshank

82 Cal. 588 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1890

At the date of .the decision rendered by the appellate court of this state in Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 37 , the statute governing the admission of children to public schools ran thus:— “Sec. 53. … The appellate court, in Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473 , speaking by Mr. Justice Sharpstein, held that such Chinese or Mongolian child could not be excluded from a white school.

People v. Belous

71 Cal. 2d 954 · California Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1969

Green (1946) 328 U.S. 549, 556 [90 Ed. 1432, 1435, 66 S.Ct. 1198 ] ; Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, 495 [ 98 L.Ed. 873, 881 , 74 S.Ct. 686 , A.L.R.2d 1180], with Plessy v. … (Tumey v. Ohio (1927) 273 U.S. 510 , [ 71 L.Ed. 749, 754 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 50 A.L.R. 1243 ]; see also te Board of Dry Gleaners v.

Los Angeles School Dist. v. Longden

148 Cal. 380 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1905

(Estate of Bulmer, 59 Cal. 131 ; Hughes v. Ewing, 93 Cal. 414 , [ 28 Pac. 1067 ]; Kennedy v. Miller, 97 Cal. 429 , [ 32 Pac. 558 ]; In re Wetmore, 99 Cal. 146 , [ 33 Pac. 769 ]; Board of Education v. … Board of Trustees, 129 Cal. 599 , [ 62 Pac. 173 ]; Mitchell v. Board of Education, 137 Cal. 372 , [ 70 Pac. 180 ]; Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554 , [ 74 Pac. 44 ].)

Turney v. Dougherty

53 Cal. 619 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1879

now for the first time presented to this Court, whether a valid extension of time could be g’ranted after the expiration of the time fixed in the contract, we would feel great hesitation'in holding, as was done in Taylor v. … , they would be powerless to resist, though the Board or former Boards may repeatedly have refused to extend the time.

Ventura County v. Clay

112 Cal. 65 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1896

Ferguson, 65 Cal. 288 , so far as adopted by this court in County of El Dorado v. Meiss, supra; also Rowe v. … (People v. Whipple, 47 Cal. 592 .)

Dyer v. Brogan

70 Cal. 136 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1886

That the erasures were there prior to the board’s passing the resolution, and that the deputy of Mr. Bussell, the clerk of the board of supervisors, Mr. … {Brier v. Woodbury, 1 Pick. 363 .)

In Re Schneider

23 Cal. 2d 427 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1943

(People v. Noland, 30 Cal.App.2d 386 [ 86 P.2d 363 ]; People v. Dawson, 210 Cal. 366 [ 292 P. 267 ]; People v. Arnest, 133 Cal.App. 114 [ 23 P.2d 812 ].)” Since the judgment on appeal in People v. … The cases of People v. Noland, 30 Cal.App.2d 386 [ 86 P.2d 363 ], and People v.

Federal Construction Co. v. Curd

179 Cal. 489 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1918

Newport Light Co. v. Newport, 151 U. S. 527, 539 , [ 38 L. Ed. 259 , 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 429, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes]. “In Lent v. Tillson, 140 U. S. 316 , [ 35 L. Ed. 419 , 11 Sup. Ct. … In the case of People v.

Morgan v. Clapp

207 Cal. 221 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1929

(Brown v. Sandell, 79 Cal. App. 313, 317 [ 249 Pac. 209 ].) … (Brown v. Sandell, supra.) Appellant cites People v. Mulcahy, 159 Cal. 34 [ 112 Pac. 853 ], in support of her contention touching the asserted insufficiency of the affidavit. The case of Brown v.