Case law

Winslow v. City of Pasadena

34 Cal. 3d 66 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1983

Winslow appeals, arguing that the board’s findings conflict with the holding in Newman v. … (Barber v. Retirement Board (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 273, 278 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 657 ].)

Lamb v. Schottler

54 Cal. 319 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

In Butler v. … In The People v.

Bliss v. Hamilton

171 Cal. 123 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1915

(See Wheeler v. Herbert, 152 Cal. 241 , [ 92 Pac. 353 ].) … A sufficient answer to all that is said in this behalf is to be found in Wheeler v.

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.

In Re Estate of Hartman

157 Cal. 206 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1910

(Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 268 , [ 51 Pac. 549, 955 ]; Garwood v. Garwood, 29 Cal. 520 ; Carleton v. Townsend, 28 Cal. 221 .) … W. 205, 207 ]; De Leon v. McMurray, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 283 , [ 23 S. W. 1038 ] ; Brown v. Lazarus, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 84 , [ 25 S.

Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.

169 Cal. 415 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1915

A few *437 miles below the head of Brown Slough the channel known as Lone Willow Slough leaves the San Joaquin. Into Lone Willow Slough flow Aliso Slough and Brown Slough. … Co. v. Hoyt, 57 Cal. 46 ; Riverside Water Co. v. Gage, 89 Cal. 410 , [ 26 Pac. 889 ] ; McGuire v. Brown, 106 Cal. 660 , [30 L. R. A. 384, 39 Pac. 1060 ].) The same rule applies to a riparian owner. ’ (Duckworth v.

Donnelly v. Marks

47 Cal. 187 · 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, and the answer took issue upon that allegation. … It is not doubted by the plaintiff—and there is, no room *191 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

People ex rel. Stoddard v. Williams

64 Cal. 87 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1883

by order of the board. (§§ 4106, 4107, Pol. … The board made no order for any publication, and therefore the publication above mentioned amounted to nothing, and the consolidation was not effected. Such was the ruling of this court in the People v.

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 .)

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.

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.

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 .)

Lamberson v. Jefferds

118 Cal. 363 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1897

It was said in Lassen County v. … And in McFarland 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.

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.

Meyerfeld v. South San Joaquin Irrigation District

3 Cal. 2d 409 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1935

(McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U. S. 619, 629 [4 Sup. Ct. 142, 28 L. Ed. 269 ]; Pacific G. & E. Co. v. Industrial. Acc. Com., 124 Cal. App. 303 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 649 ] ; McCarthy v. Board of Fire Commrs., 37 Cal. … Although the purchasers of said bonds were charged with notice of the limitations of the power of the board (McCoy 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.

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 .)

Boskowitz v. Thompson

144 Cal. 724 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1904

(Thompson v. Allen County, 115 U. S. 550 ; People v. Biggins, 96 Ill. 481 ; Corbin v. Young, 24 Kan. 201 ; Grand Rapids etc. v. Trustees, 102 Ky. 556 ; Board of Commrs. v. King, 67 Fed. 202 .) 2. … (Hughson v. Crane, 115 Cal. 404 .)

Davis v. John Breuner Co.

167 Cal. 683 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1914

(Niosi v. Empire Steam Laundry Co., 117 Cal. 257 , [49 Pac. *686 185]; Brown v. Brashear, 22 Cal. App. 135 , [ 133 Pac. 506 ].) … Southern Pacific Co., 146 Cal. 236 , [ 79 Pac. 873 ]; Shade v. Bay Counties Power Co., 152 Cal. 11 , [ 92 Pac. 62 ] Brown v Pacific Electric Ry. Co., ante, p. 200, [ 138 Pac. 1005 ].)