Case law

People v. Schwartz

31 Cal. 2d 59 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1947

The certificate of delinquency carries with it the presumption that the assessment of the board is correct. (People v. Mahoney, 13 Cal.2d 729 [ 91 P.2d 1029 ]; Rev. & Tax. Code, § 6714.) … (People v. Mahoney, supra, p. 733 .)

Rusheen v. Cohen

37 Cal. 4th 1048 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2006

In Brown v. … (See Rubin, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 1198-1199; Brown, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 45; see also Temple Community Hospital v.

Krouser v. County of San Bernardino

29 Cal. 2d 766 · California Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1947

Southern Pacific Co. v. … In Pasadena v.

Irving v. Carpentier

70 Cal. 23 · California Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1886

Jones, Charles Crocker, Leland Stanford, and others of whose names plaintiff is ignorant, and whom he designates by the names of Tom Jones, Mary Jones, John Smith, and John Brown, and whose names when discovered he asks leave … Rosencrantz v. Rogers, 40 Cal. 489 , has no application here. In that case the complaint did not contain the averment as to ignorance required by the statute.

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.

Roberts v. Duffy

167 Cal. 629 · California Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1914

a hearing thereon before said board and at the conclusion thereof, to an immediate release on parole, but that he is prevented by the said board from having his application therefor filed with the clerk of the board or considered … (Kemble v. McPhail, 128 Cal. 444 , [ 60 Pac. 1092 .])

Union Trust Co. v. State of California

154 Cal. 716 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1908

(McBean v. San Bernardino, 96 Cal. 183 , [31 Pac. 49]; Conlin v. Board of Supervisors, 99 Cal. 17 , [ 37 Am. St. Rep. 17 , 33 Pac. 753]; Connolly v. San Francisco, (Cal.) 33 Pac. 1109 .) … (Him melman v. Cofran, 36 Cal. 411 ; Town of Tipton v. Jones, 77 Ind. 307 ; Tone v. Mayor, 70 N. Y. 157 ; German Am. Bank v. Spokane, 17 Wash. 315 , [ 47 Pac. 1103 , 49 Pac. 542 ]; Whalen v. La Crosse, 16 Wis. 288 .)

Maggart v. State Bar

7 Cal. 2d 495 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1936

(McGuire v. McGuire, 129 Cal. App. 644 [ 19 Pac. (2d) 7 ].) … (Herrscher v. State Bar of California, 4 Cal. (2d) 399 [ 49 Pac. (2d) 832 ].)

Deupree v. Payne

197 Cal. 529 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1925

Section 4041 of the Political Code, which has relation to the general jurisdiction and powers of boards of supervisors, grants the said board that power. … Solano County, 26 Cal. 116 ; McKannay v. Horton, 151 Cal. 711, 719 [ 121 Am. St. Rep. 146 , 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 661, 91 Pac. 598 ]; Boyd v. Pendegast, 57 Cal. App. 504 [ 207 Pac. 713 ]).

Pearson Candy Co. v. Waits

27 Cal. 2d 615 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1946

Carriers v. National War Labor Board, 143 F.2d 145, 148 ; National War Labor Board v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 144 F.2d 528, 530 ; National War Labor Board v. … Co. v. National Labor R. Board, 321 U.S. 702, 704 [ 64 S.Ct. 817 , 88 L.Ed. 1020 ]; International Assn. of Machinists v. National Labor R.

Flynn v. Chiappari

191 Cal. 139 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1923

Co. v. … (Tarpey v. McClure, 190 Cal. 593 [ 213 Pac. 983 ].) [4] It is also true that for the purposes of the instant case the board of supervisors is the legislature. (Larsen v. San Francisco, supra.)

In re Wetmore

99 Cal. 146 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1893

(Danielly v. Cabaniss, 52 Ga. 222 ; Horton v. Mobile School Commissioners, 43 Ala. 598 .) In Board of Education v. … (See also Board of Education v. Martin, 92 Cal. 209 .)

Leis v. City and County of San Francisco

213 Cal. 256 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1931

(Smith v. City of San Luis Obispo, 95 Cal. 463 [ 30 Pac. 591 ]; Wilcoxon v. City of San Luis Obispo, 101 Cal. 508 [ 35 Pac. 988 ]; 9 Cal. Jur., p. 4; 18 C. J. 38, 41, 42; People v. Marin County, 103 Cal. 223 [26 L. R. … A. 659, 37 Pac. 203 ]; 4 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, p. 474; People v. Beaudry, 91 Cal. 213 [ 27 Pac. 610 ].)

Kepler v. State Bar

216 Cal. 52 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1932

Subsequent to his disbarment petitioner appeared as assignee of accounts for collection under the belief that the decision in the case of O’Connell v. Judnich, 71 Cal. … In the ease of Koepple v. Morrison, 84 Cal.

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.

Leach v. Day

27 Cal. 643 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

(West v. Walker, 2 Green’s Ch. R. 279 ; Van Winkle v. Curtiss, lb. 422; Kerlin v. West, 3 lb. 449.) Obviously the case at bar does not come within either of the foregoing exceptions. … But it is insisted on the part of the respondent that this is not an ordinary action of trespass, and it is argued that it is like the case of McCann v. Sierra County, 7 Cal. 121 , and rests upon the same principle.

Kelly v. Edwards

69 Cal. 460 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1886

It will not be contended that the respondents or the board should be compelled to admit to the board a sixth fire commissioner. … Since the submission of this cause, our attention has been called to Lewis v. Whittle, 77 Va. 415 . In that case, the mandamus was refused.

Welch v. Ware

161 Cal. 641 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1911

Welch (petitioner), as the fire, fish, and game warden of the county of Santa Cruz,” and at said called meeting an order of the board was made and entered reciting that “it appearing to the board that W. R. … This point is thoroughly settled by the recent decision of this court in Bannerman v. Boyle, 160 Cal. 197 , [ 116 Pac. 732 ].

Warren v. Riddell

106 Cal. 352 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1895

The resolution of intention for the work for which the assessment was issued, as well as all the subsequent proceedings taken by the board of supervisors, provided for the grading of Santa Clara street, between Kansas and … In Fanning v.

People v. Howard

135 Cal. 266 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1901

(People v. Martin, 102 Cal. 558 .) … (Citing People v. Dilwood, 94 Cal. 89 ; People v.