Case law

Jamme v. Riley

192 Cal. 125 · California Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1923

This precise question has been determined adversely to the respondent’s contention herein by this court in its recent decision in the case of Railroad Com. v. … Such, we think, is the effect of our decision in the case of Railroad Com. 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.

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.)

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.

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.

O'HARE v. Superior Court

43 Cal. 3d 86 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1987

(Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357, 359 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 579, 583 , 99 S.Ct. 664 ]; see also Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 217, 220 [ 90 L.Ed. 1181, 1184 , 66 S.Ct. 984 , 166 A.L.R. 1412 ]; Brown v. … (Johnson v.

Brook v. Horton

68 Cal. 554 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1886

(Polack v. S. F. Orphan Asylum, 48 Cal. 490 .) … Westborough, 3 Mass. 406 ; Commonwealth v. Cambridge, 7 Mass. 158 ; Bowley v. Walker, 8 Allen, 21 .)

Doughterty v. Austin

94 Cal. 601 · California Supreme Court · May 30, 1892

The supreme court of that state, in State v. Field, 17 Mo. 529 , 59 Am. … such board that the salary as thus fixed is insufficient to pay him a reasonable compensation for his services.

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.

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.

Schwiesau v. Mahon

128 Cal. 114 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1900

(Citing Bolton v. Gilleran, 105 Cal. 244 ; 45 Am. St. Rep. 33 ; San Jose Imp. Co. v. Auzerais, 106 Cal. 498 .) … The resolution is the initial step, and by it alone the board acquired jurisdiction to subsequently order the work done. (Bolton v. Gilleran, supra.)

Hastings v. City of San Francisco

18 Cal. 49 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

The case of Hunsacker v. Borden ( 5 Cal. 288 ) is not in conflict with this view. … In the case of Burgoyne v.

Directors of Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Abila

106 Cal. 365 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1895

(People v. Seale, 52 Cal. 71 .) … This act of the clerk was unauthorized, and did not make the inserted words a part of the records of the board. In Dyer v.

Cosey v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

192 Cal. 265 · California Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1923

Co. v. … In Brown v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 99 Mo. 310 [ 12 S. W. 655 ], it was said: “Facts which are necessarily implied from those alleged need not be stated. . . .

Holderby v. International Union of Operating Engineers

45 Cal. 2d 843 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1955

(Lawson v. Hewell, supra, 118 Cal. 613 ; Levy v. Magnolia Lodge No. 29, I.O.O.F., 110 Cal. 297 [ 42 P. 887 ].) … In Weber v.

Schwartz v. Wilson

75 Cal. 502 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1888

In San Francisco v. … Were the ques *506 tion discussed in San Francisco v.

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.