Case law

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.

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 ].)

Napa State Hospital v. Flaherty

134 Cal. 315 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1901

J., in Kay v. … This language was quoted with approval by this court in Spears v.

Holabird v. Railroad Commission

171 Cal. 691 · California Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1916

(Wilson v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County, 3 Cal. 386 ; People v. County Judge, 40 Cal. 479 ; Aberding v. Macham, 40 Cal. 656 ; Lamb v. Schottler, 54 Cal. 320 ; Sayers v. … Superior Court, 84 Cal. 642 , [ 24 Pac. 296 ]; Gauld v. Board of Supervisors, 122 Cal. 18 , [ 54 Pac. 272 ].) In Wilson v.

People v. Chism

58 Cal. 4th 1266 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 2014

(People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 573, fn. 24 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 73 P.3d 1137 ]; see People v. … (People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 398 ; see People v.

Akins v. County of Sonoma

67 Cal. 2d 185 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1967

From the record it appears that the bleacher section consisted of approximately 13 tiered boards for seating. Each seat board was approximately 9 inches wide. … Proc., § 610; Nunneley v. Edgar Hotel (1950) 36 Cal.2d 493, 501 [ 225 P.2d 497 ]; Trust v.

People v. Banks

6 Cal. 4th 926 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1993

(Brown v. Texas (1979) 443 U.S. 47, 50-51 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 361-362 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 ].) … Sitz mirrored the opinion in Ingersoll in determining that the balancing analysis of Brown v.

In Re Powell

45 Cal. 3d 894 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1988

It is indisputable, of course, that the board could not have based its rescission on the Gravitt allegation without giving Powell an opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses. (See Morrisey v. … (See People v. Powell, supra, 67 Cal.2d 32 ; People v. Powell, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d 107 .) We refer to Powell’s imprisonment following his arrest in this case.

Felt v. Waughop

193 Cal. 498 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1924

Brown, who has likewise complied with all of said requirements. … This conclusion finds some support in the case of State v. Marks, 30 La. Ann. 97 , cited and quoted from in the recent case of People v. La Barre, ante, p. 388 [ 224 Pac. 750 ].

Golden v. State Bar

213 Cal. 237 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1931

(Herron v. State Bar, 212 Cal. 196 [ 298 Pac. 474 ].) Ten members of the board participated in the hearing. Eight of the ten made the findings and recommendation for disbarment. … matter in the order to show cause (see San Francisco Bar Assn. v.

People ex rel. Travers v. Freese

76 Cal. 633 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1888

(People v. Cazneau, 20 Cal. 507 ;. People v. Tilton, 37 Cal. 619 .) … If sections 368 and 3C0 were repealed, the board would not be affected thereby.

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.

Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club

45 Cal. 4th 309 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2008

It sought both to bar those removed directors from running for the Board in the 2005 election and to bar Aumen and O’Connell from ever running for the Board again. … (Ingels v. Westwood One Broadcasting Services, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1067 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 933 ]; cf. Northern Cal. Carpenters Regional Council v.

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 ].)

John Hoagland v. City of Sacramento

52 Cal. 142 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

Lim. chap. 8, and The People v. Hurlburt, 24 Mich. 44 ; State v. Noyes, 10 Fost. (N. H.) 292; Bow v. Allenstown, 34 N. H. 351; Caldwell v. The Justices, 4 Jones’ Eq. 323; Webster v. Harrington, 32 Conn. 131 ; Com. v. … If from any cause a vacancy shall occur in the Board, it shall be filled by the remaining members of the Board.. “ Sec. 3.

In Re Byrnes

32 Cal. 2d 843 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1948

offenses that were affirmed in the first action (People v. … [affirmed on appeal] in the first action” (People v.

Montecito County Water District v. Doulton

193 Cal. 398 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1924

W. 278 ]; Village of Champlain v. McCrea, 165 N. Y. 264 [ 59 N. E. 83 ]; City of Newport v. Newport Nat. Bank, 146 Ky. 736 [ 143 S. W. 377 ]; Eddy v. Morgan, 216 Ill. 437 [ 75 N. E. 174 ] ; Mayne v. … The first of these cases is Fritz v.

Estate of McMillin

46 Cal. 2d 121 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1956

(See also Estate of Brown, 24 Cal. App.2d 573, 575 [ 75 P.2d 658 ]; Estate of Reinicker, supra, 44 Cal. App.2d 271, 273-274 ; Estate of Harrison, 103 Cal. … (See Evans v.

Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles

67 Cal. 2d 297 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1967

the board, prior to the decision in Atwell (Atwell v. … Thus, in Tyra v. Board of Police etc.

Wilson v. Supervisors of Sutter County

47 Cal. 91 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

The Board before making the order complained of, had as a Board of Equalization acted upon the assessment roll for the district. … It was held in People v.