Case law

People v. Ricciardi

23 Cal. 2d 390 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1943

Co., 122 Cal. 681 [ 55 P. 688 ]; Brown v. Board of Supervisors, 124 Cal. 274, 280 [ 57 P. 82 ]; Eachus v. City of Los Angeles, 130 Cal. 492 [ 62 P. 829 , 80 Am.St.Rep. 147 ]; Smith v. Southern Pacific R. R. … (See Rose v. State of California, supra; Bacich v. Board of Control, supra.)

Fillmore Union High School District v. Cobb

5 Cal. 2d 26 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1935

Lim., p. 228; School District No. 7, etc., v. Hunnicutt, (Okl.) 51 Fed. (2d) 528; People v. Kuder, 93 Cal. … This contention is sufficiently answered by Carter v. Stevens, supra, 289-293 [ 211 Cal. 281 , 295 Pac. 28 ], and Gaylord v.

Pryor v. Municipal Court

25 Cal. 3d 238 · California Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1979

(Accord, Sanita v. Board of Police Comnrs. (1972) 27 Cal. App.3d 993, 997-998 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 380 ].) In Gonzalez v. … Board of Education (1963) 59 Cal.2d 203, 218 [ 28 Cal. Rptr. 700 , 379 P.2d 4 ].)

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 .)

White v. Douglass

71 Cal. 115 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1886

(Silvey v. Neary, 59 Cal. 97 ; Tracy v. Craig, 55 Cal. 91 ; Bradbury v. Cronise, 46 Cal. 287 ; Hill v. Den, 54 Cal. 20 ; Gregory v. Nelson, 41 Cal. 286 ; Burnett v. Stearns, 33 Cal. 468 .) … by the board.

Lorenson v. City of Los Angeles

41 Cal. 2d 334 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1953

As pointed out in Farrell v. … (See Benner v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1945), 26 Cal.2d 346, 349-350 [ 159 P.2d 24 ]; Tyra v. Board of Police etc. Commrs. (1948), 32 Cal.2d 666, *341 670-671 [ 197 P.2d 710 ] ; Schulstad v.

County of San Joaquin v. Budd

96 Cal. 47 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1892

(Payne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 244 ; Marshall v. Shafter, 32 Cal. 194 .) … (Shanklin v. Gomm’rs Madison Co., 21 Ohio St. 583 .) This expresses with accuracy the powers of the board of supervisors within the several counties of this state.

Davis v. Whidden

117 Cal. 618 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1897

In People v. Clark, 1 Cal. 406 , the facts were that Clark was elected county j udge at an election regularly appointed and held. … In Louisville v. Savings Bank, 104 U. S. 469 , the case of People v. Clark, supra, was cited approvingly, and the court, by Mr.

People v. Hubbard

63 Cal. 4th 378 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2016

(People v. … (See Webb v.

Johnson v. Sherman

15 Cal. 287 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

In Astor v. … In Walton v.

Los Angeles County v. San José Land & Water Co.

96 Cal. 93 · California Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1892

In such suit, no informality in the proceedings of the board shall vitiate said suit, but the said order of the board, directing the district attorney to bring suit, shall be conclusive proof of the regularity thereof; and … (Bamrell v. B. S. San Joaquin County), p. 155, is not in point here.

People's Lumber Co. v. Gillard

136 Cal. 55 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1902

(Kiessig v. Allspaugh, 99 Cal. 452 ; Summerton v. Hanson, 117 Cal. 252 , and cases cited.) The reasons which led to the conclusion in the above cases would seem to apply here. (See, also, Union Sheet and Metal Works v. … Defendants claim that this was error (citing Victor Sewing Machine Co. v. Scheffler, 61 Cal. 530 ; Daley v. Russ, 86 Cal. 114 ).

People v. Gray

66 Cal. 271 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1884

(State v. Goetz, 34 Mo. 89 .) … (Commonwealth v.

People ex rel. Mariposa County v. Counts

89 Cal. 15 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1891

In People v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 211 , 13 Am. St. … The subscriptions and the bonds authorized by this election were held valid by the supreme court of the United States. ( County of Chicot v. Lewis, 103 U. S. 164 .) In McMahon v.

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.

Salazar v. Eastin

9 Cal. 4th 836 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1995

(San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571, 577 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 , 828 P.2d 147 ]; London & S. F. Bank v. Parrott (1899) 125 Cal. 472, 481 [ 58 P. 164 ].) … (San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 577; Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 443 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 574 , 111 P.2d 610 ].)

Brock v. Luning

89 Cal. 316 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1891

(Raisch v. City and County of San Francisco, 80 Cal. 4 ; Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 ; Fanning v. Schammel, 68 Cal. 428 ; Dougherty v. … (Raisch v. San Francisco, 80 Cal. 5 .)

Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc.

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 892 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2003

Auto Stiegler cites Brown v. Wheat First Securities, Inc. (D.C. … As the Brown court summarized it, Cole acknowledged “that the Supreme Court in Gilmer v.

Hawkins v. Superior Court

22 Cal. 3d 584 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1978

Cooper v. Bray, supra, 21 Cal.3d 841, 847-848 (automobile guest statute applied to owner-passenger); Newland v. … Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 18-19, 24 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ] (osteopathic license law); Brown v.

City San Franciso v. Kiernan

98 Cal. 614 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1893

(Lewis on Eminent Domain, sec. 256; Knowles v. Muscatine, 20 Iowa, 248 .) … (Davies v. City of Los Angeles, 86 Cal. 43 .) 2.