Case law

Frandzen v. County of San Diego

101 Cal. 317 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1894

Maxwell v. Board of Supervisors, 32 Pac. Rep. 443 (not reported in California Reports), was mandamus to compel the board to advertise for bids for county advertising. … Co. v. Whitney, 97 Cal. 283 .

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.

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.

Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange

7 Cal. 3d 616 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1972

Fund v. … . 12 Noe v.

In re Gadlin

272 Cal. Rptr. 3d 879 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 2020

(Coleman v. Schwarzenegger (E.D.Cal. 2009) 922 F.Supp.2d 882, 962; see also Brown v. Plata (2011) 563 U.S. 493, 501–503.) … (See Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 803; see also Amwest Surety v. Wilson (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1243, 1260–1261, citing Wright v. Jordan (1923) 192 Cal. 704, 713.)

Renwick v. Phillips

204 Cal. 349 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1928

The single episode testified to before the Board of Medical Examiners occurred, admittedly, during the absence of Dr. Renwick and without any knowledge, concurrence or consent on his part. … (Thrasher v. Board of Medical Examiners, 44 Cal. App. 26 [ 185 Pac. 1006 ] ; Lanterman v. Anderson, 36 Cal. App. 472 [ 172 Pac. 625 ]; Suckow v. Alderson, 182 Cal. 247 [ 187 Pac. 965 ].) The judgment is affirmed.

Gilgert v. Stockton Port District

7 Cal. 2d 384 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1936

Blumenthal & Co., Inc., v. Cryer, 71 Cal. App. 668 [ 236 Pac. 216 ]; Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 Pac. 381 , 38 A. L. R. 1479] ; Zahn v. … Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497 [ 234 Pac. 388 ] ; Dwyer v. City Council of Berkeley, 200 Cal. 505, 511 [ 253 Pac. 932 ] ; Hurst v. City of Burlingame, 207 Cal. 134, 142 [ 277 Pac. 308, 312 ].

Craig v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cty.

157 Cal. 481 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1910

In the case of Coffey v. … This amendment was in line with what was declared in Dinan v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.

In Re Peterson

14 Cal. 2d 82 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1939

(United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 [ 8 L. Ed. 640 ] , and see cases cited in annotation, 52 A. L. R. 835.) The same conclusion has been reached in California. … W. 213 ]; State v. Goddard, 69 Or. 73 [ 133 Pac. 90 , 138 Pac. 243 , Ann. Cas. 1916A, 146].)

People v. Town of Berkeley

102 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1894

(McKinney v. County Commrs., 26 Fla. 267 .) In Fox v. … In Ruggles v. Board of Trustees of the City of Woodland , 88 Cal. 430 , application was made for a writ of mandate *307 to compel the trustees to call and provide for the holding of an election of city officers.

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.

City & County of San Francisco v. Broderick

111 Cal. 302 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1896

of supervisors and vested in a board of five commissioners, . . „ . which board is hereby invested with all the powers and charged with all the duties as to matters pertaining to elections now vested in said board of supervisors … (See Cashin v. Dunn, 58 Cal. 582 ; Welch v. Strother, 74 Cal. 415 .)

Moreno v. Cairns

20 Cal. 2d 531 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1942

(People v. Marsh, 30 Cal. App. 424 [159 Pac. 191]; State ex rel. Young v. Ladeen, 104 Minn. 252 [ 116 N. W. 486 , 16 L. R. A. (NS) 1058].) … (Kramer v. Board of Police Commissioners, 39 Cal. App. 396 [ 179 Pac. 216 ].)

County of Los Angeles v. Spencer

126 Cal. 670 · California Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1899

(Abeel v. Clark, supra; Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., supra.) … The case of Boorman v.

Town of Arcata v. Arcata & Mad River Railroad

92 Cal. 639 · California Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1891

(Rush v. Jackson, 24 Cal. 316 ; Borland v. Lewis, 43 Cal. 572 ; Oakland R. R. Co. v. Oakland etc. R. R. Co., 45 Cal. 379 ; Upham v. Hosking, 62 Cal. 257 .) There is some language employed in the opinion in People v. … (United States v. Grundy, 3 Cranch, 151 .) Judgment affirmed. Harrison, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.

Lincoln v. Colusa County

28 Cal. 662 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1865

But it is unnecessary to pursue the argument, for in Harper v. Richardson, 22 Cal. 251 , the question was presented and decided, and it is broadly within the analogy of Gilmer v. Lime Point, 19 Cal. 47 . … The petition for the road was presented to the Board of Supervisors on the 4th of August, 1862; and on the same day the plaintiff filed with the Clerk of the Board a petition for “just and reasonable damages,” in the event

Balen v. Peralta Junior College District

11 Cal. 3d 821 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1974

(See, e.g., Holbrook v. Board of Education (1951) 37 Cal.2d 316 [ 231 P.2d 853 ]; Rutley v. Belmont Elementary Sch. Dist. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 702 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 671 ]; Curtis v. … (DiGenova v. State Board of Education (1962) 57 Cal.2d 167, 176 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 367 P.2d 865 ].)

Geibel v. State Bar

14 Cal. 2d 144 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1939

Co. v. Railroad Com., 251 U. S. 366 [40 Sup. Ct. 174, 64 L. … (Herron v.