Case law

Rock v. State Bar

57 Cal. 2d 639 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1962

(Stephens v. State Bar, 19 Cal.2d 580, 583 [1b] [ 122 P.2d 549 ] ; Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal.2d 75, 77 [ 39 P.2d 403 ].) Second. Was the discipline recommended by the Board of Governors excessive? No. … The penalty recommended by the Board of Governors— two years’ suspension—is not excessive. (Sullivan v. State Bar, supra, 50 Cal.2d 491, 502 ; Stephens v. State Bar, supra, 19 Cal.2d 580, 583 .)

Great Western Power Co. v. Pillsbury

170 Cal. 180 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1915

(Schwartz v. Superior *186 Court, 111 Cal. 106, 112 , [ 43 Pac. 580 ]; People v. Board, 14 Cal. 479 ; Lowe v. Alexander, 15 Cal. 301 ; Blair v. Hamilton, 32 Cal. 49 ; Stumpf v. Board, 131 Cal. 364 , [ 82 Am. St. … (Rakiec v. Delaware etc. Co. (N. J.), 88 Atl. 953 ; George v. Glasgow Coal Co. [1909], App. Cas. 123; M’Caffrey v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 36 Ir. L. T. Rep. 27; Fenton v. Thorley & Co. [1903], A. C. 443; Sexton v.

City & County of San Francisco v. Linares

16 Cal. 2d 441 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1940

In Slavich v. … In Harter v.

Wolstenholme v. City of Oakland

54 Cal. 2d 48 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1960

(Newman v. Board of Civil Service Comrs., supra, at 910 [3] et seq.; Corcoran v. City of Los Angeles, 136 Cal.App.2d 839, 842 [6] [ 289 P.2d 556 ].) … App. 392 [ 163 P. 69 ] [16 months]; in Newman v. Board of Civil Service Comrs., supra [18 months]; or in Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 120 Cal.

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.

Barry v. Goad

89 Cal. 215 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1891

By the act of April 1, 1872 (Stats. 1872, p. 846), defining the powers and duties of the board, it is declared: — “ Sec. 1. The board of education of the city and county of San Francisco shall have power: .... 3. … (Winn v. Shaw, 87 Cal. 631 .)

McGowan v. Ford

107 Cal. 177 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1895

In San Francisco Gas Co. v. … (Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 46 ; 17 Am. Rep. 405 ; Fleming v. Wells, 65 Cal. 339 ; People v. Johnson, 95 Cal. 474 .)

Donnelly v. Tillman

47 Cal. 40 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

In Shepard v. Colton, 44 Cal. 628 , the complaint alleged that notice of the award was published pursuant to the order of the Board, *41 and the answer took issue upon that allegation. … It is not doubted by the plaintiff—and there is no room for doubt—that the publication of the notice of award must be made in pursuance of an order issued by the proper Board or officer—that is to say, the Board or officer

Light v. State Bar

14 Cal. 2d 328 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1939

Osborne v. Ralph G. … As was said in Furman v.

People v. Hinton

38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 2006

Background On May 24, 1988, Landis Barnes, Albert Brown, and Brown’s cousin Tenoa Stevenson were shot in a Best Western motel room in Monterey Park during a drug deal. Barnes and Brown' died at the scene. … Brown was Stevenson’s partner in the drug deal and thus had constructive possession of the purchase money. (People v.

Sutro v. Pettit

74 Cal. 332 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1887

(Town of East Oakland v. Skinner, 94 U. S. 255 .) … Case, 46 Cal. 172 ; Wallace v. Mayor of San Jose, 29 Cal. 181 ; El Dorado County v. Davidson, 30 Cal. 521 ; Robinson v. Supervisors of Sacramento, 16 Cal. 208 ; Foster v. Coleman, 10 Cal. 281 ; People v.

People v. Chism

58 Cal. 4th 1266 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 2014

(People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 573, fn. 24 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 73 P.3d 1137 ]; see People v. … (People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 398 ; see People v.

Bateman v. Colgan

111 Cal. 580 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1896

for making improvements provided in the law governing said board. … The rule is well stated in Van Denburgh v. Greenbush, 66 N.

Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court

54 Cal. 2d 548 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1960

See People v. … (Mayer v.

Department of Water & Power v. Vroman

218 Cal. 206 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1933

(Mesmer v. Board of Public Service Commrs., 23 Cal. App. 578 [ 138 Pac. 935 ]; Shelton v. City of Los Angeles, 206 Cal. 544 [ 275 Pac. 421 ].) … It is insisted that this ordinance is an unlawful suspension or surrender of legislative power within the doctrine of Thompson v. Board of Trustees, 144 Cal. 281 [ 77 Pac. 951 ].

People v. Evans

29 Cal. 429 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

In referring to these Acts, the Court say, in People v. … (See also People v. Love, 25 Cal. 526 -31; Reed v. Calderwood, 22 Cal. 465 .) The judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Mr.

Haigler v. Donnelly

18 Cal. 2d 674 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1941

(Ford v. Brown, 120 Cal. 551 [ 52 Pac. 817 ]; Sill v. Ceschi, 167 Cal. 698 [ 140 Pac. 949 ]; Church v. Dunham, 14 Ida. 776 [ 96 Pac. 203 ]; Burnett v. Potts, 236 Ill. 499 [ 86 N. E. 258 ]; Culbertson v. … (Wood v. Blaney, 107 Cal. 291 [ 40 Pac. 428 ]; Bellus v. Peters, 165 Cal. 112 [ 130 Pac. 1186 ] ; Stacy v. Browne, 99 Okla. 104 [ 219 Pac. 336 ]; Jones v. Smith, 65 Misc. 528 [ 120 N. Y. Supp. 865 ]; see 3 C. J. S. 19.)

Consolidated Theatres, Inc. v. Theatrical Stage Employees Union, Local 16

69 Cal. 2d 713 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1968

Board” (italics added) (San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. … shown by the party seeking to invoke state jurisdiction that the Board would decline to assert jurisdiction if application were made to it (Russell v.

Anaheim Sugar Co. v. County of Orange

181 Cal. 212 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1919

Co. v. … It is clear that when the board acts without jurisdiction, its action may be collaterally attacked. (Fremont County v.

Ex Parte Whitley

144 Cal. 167 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1904

This is a power which seems to be usually given by the legislature to boards of examiners, and its commission is sustained by the courts. (State v. Chittenden, 112 Wis. 569 ; Williams v. … The case of Van Vlick v. Board of Dental Examiners, 48 Pac. 223 , is cited by both sides, in the case at bar, on the question just disposed of.