Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fulkerth v. County of Stanislaus

67 Cal. 334 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1885

than the board allowed, the board must pay the claimant no more than ivas originally allowed.” … (Chase v. The County of Saratoga, 33 Barb. 603 ; Martin v. Board of Supervisors, 29 N. Y. 645 ; Price v.

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.

Swamp and Overflowed Land Dis. No. 110 v. Feck

60 Cal. 403 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1882

(The Phoenix Bank v. Donnell, 40 N. Y. 410 .) … Dyer v.

Topanga Ass'n v. County of Los Angeles

11 Cal. 3d 506 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1974

Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals, supra, at pp. 772-773. See also Stoddard v. Edelman (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 544, 549 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 443 ]. Cf. Friends of Mammoth v. … Allen v. Humboldt County Board of Supervisors (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 877, 882 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 232 ]. See also Siller v. Board of Supervisors (1962) 58 Cal.2d 479, 481 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 73 , 375 P.2d 41 ].

Brenner v. City of Los Angeles

160 Cal. 72 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1911

of supervisors sitting as a board of equalization. … In Hayes v.

In Re Tobacco II Cases

46 Cal. 4th 298 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 2009

(See Soukup v. … (Kister v.

San Ysidro Irrigation District v. Superior Court

56 Cal. 2d 708 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1961

Board of Supervisors (1914) 24 Cal.App. 381, 385 [ 141 P. 404 ]; and Metcalfe v. … See also Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., supra, 21 Cal.2d at page 402 .

Pearson v. County of Los Angeles

49 Cal. 2d 523 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1957

(See Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs. (1941), 18 Cal.2d 427, 430 [4] [ 116 P.2d 37 , 136 A.L.R. 800 ].) … (Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commrs. (1945), supra, 26 Cal.2d 716, 720 .)

Consumers Salt Co. v. Riggins

208 Cal. 537 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1929

Bank v. Sierra L. Co., 63 Cal. 179 ; San Joaquin etc. Co. v. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70 [ 35 Pac. 349 ]; Barrell v. Lake View Land Co., 122 Cal. 129 [ 54 Pac. 594 ]; Balfour-Guthrie Co. v. … Bank v.

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

County of Los Angeles v. Payne

8 Cal. 2d 563 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1937

See State v. McCauley, 15 Cal. 429, 430 ; Koppikus v. State Capitol Commissioners, 16 Cal. 248, 249; People v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 175, 207 . … (Mullen v. Sackett, 14 Wash. 100 [ 44 Pac. 136 ]; Graham v. Spokane, 19 Wash. 447 [ 53 Pac. 714 ]; State v. Mutty, 39 Wash. 624 [ 82 Pac. 118 ]; Seymour v. Ellensburg, 81 Wash. 365 [ 142 Pac. 875 ].)

Lower Kings River Reclamation District, No. 531 v. Phillips

108 Cal. 306 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1895

The same view was taken in Reclamation District v. Goldman, 65 Cal. 637 , and in Swamp Land District v. Gwynn, 70 Cal. 566 . Hutson v. … As he was not allowed such hearing, the order made by the board was set aside. In Lent v.

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.

Tidewater Southern Ry. Co. v. Jordan

163 Cal. 105 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1912

The language last quoted plainly requires the assent of every member of the board. (Crickenberger v. Westfield, 71 N. J. L. 467, [ 58 Atl. 1097 ].) … (State v. McBride, 4 Mo. 303 , [ 29 Am. Dec. 636 ]; Green v. Weller, 32 Miss. 650 ; Southworth v. Palmyra etc. R. R. Co., 2 Mich. 287 ; Warnock v. Lafayette, 4 La. Ann. 419 .)