Case law

Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles

71 Cal. 2d 907 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1969

Jockey Club, Inc. v. Caliornia etc. Racing Board, supra, Cal.2d 167, 175; McDonough v. … (See Stewart v. State Personnel Board (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 445, 447-448 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 280 ]; Sweeney v. State Personnel Board (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 246, 251 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 766 ]; Forstner v.

Meyerfeld v. South San Joaquin Irrigation District

3 Cal. 2d 409 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1935

(McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U. S. 619, 629 [4 Sup. Ct. 142, 28 L. Ed. 269 ]; Pacific G. & E. Co. v. Industrial. Acc. Com., 124 Cal. App. 303 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 649 ] ; McCarthy v. Board of Fire Commrs., 37 Cal. … Although the purchasers of said bonds were charged with notice of the limitations of the power of the board (McCoy v.

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 ].

Imperial Land Co. v. Imperial Irr. Dist.

173 Cal. 660 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1916

(Manning v. Den, 90 Cal. 610 , [ 27 Pac. 435 ]; McBean v. Redick, 96 Cal. 191 , [ 31 Pac. 7 ]; Chase v. City Treasurer, 122 Cal. 540 , [ 55 Pac. 414 ].) … This provision received careful consideration at the hands of this court in Chase v. Trout, 146 Cal. 350 , [ 80 Pac. 81 ]; see, also, Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 568 , [ 89 Pac. 352 ]; Board of Education v.

Hartzell v. Connell

35 Cal. 3d 899 · California Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1984

(Kay County Excise Board v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. (1939) 185 Okla. 327 [ 91 P.2d 1087, 1088-1089 ]; see also Alexander v. … See also Board of Ed., etc. v.

People v. Sama

189 Cal. 153 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1922

In People v. Burns, 138 Cal. 159 [60 L. R. … (People v. Judge of the Twelfth District, 17 Cal. 549 , 554.)

Boskowitz v. Thompson

144 Cal. 724 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1904

(Thompson v. Allen County, 115 U. S. 550 ; People v. Biggins, 96 Ill. 481 ; Corbin v. Young, 24 Kan. 201 ; Grand Rapids etc. v. Trustees, 102 Ky. 556 ; Board of Commrs. v. King, 67 Fed. 202 .) 2. … (Hughson v. Crane, 115 Cal. 404 .)

Rosner v. Eden Township Hospital District

58 Cal. 2d 592 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1962

The refusal of access to a district hospital could, as a practical matter, have the effect of denying to a licensed doctor qualified to practice in California the right to fully exercise his profession, (gee Wyatt v. … The determination of the board that Dr.

Brandenstein v. Hoke

101 Cal. 131 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1894

No discretion is vested in the board of supervisors to reject the petition, or even change its proposed boundaries. The duty of the board is entirely perfunctory. … We also refer to People v. Bennett, 29 Mich. 451 , in support of the views -we have expressed.

Shuggart v. Lycoming Fire Insurance Co.

55 Cal. 408 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

In Security Insurance Co. v. … Co. v. Riker, 10 Mich. 279 .” In Viele v. Germania Ins.

Marin Municipal Water District v. Dolge

172 Cal. 724 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1916

The case comes clearly within the rule laid down in Los Angeles v. Lelande, 157 Cal. 30 , [ 106 P. 218 ). … Its validity cannot be questioned except in an action in quo warranto by or on behalf of the state. ( Keech v. Joplin, 157 Cal. 1 , 14, [ 106 P. 222 ]; Quint v. Hoffman, 103 Cal. 506 , [ 37 P. 514, 777 ].)

Tapley v. State Bar

8 Cal. 2d 167 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1937

board. … (McCue v. State Bar, 4 Cal. (2d) 79, 81 [ 47 Pac. (2d) 268 ].) We will now briefly consider the objections of petitioner to the findings of the respective local committees upon each of the two charges involved herein.

Agnew v. City of Los Angeles

51 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1958

XI, §11; Tolman v. Underhill, 39 Cal.2d 708, 712 [4] [ 249 P.2d 280 ]; Pipoly v. Benson, 20 Cal.2d 366, 370 [ 125 P.2d 482 , 147 A.L.R. 515 ] ; Atlas Mixed Mortar Co. v. … In City & County of San Francisco v.

Home for the Care of the Inebriate v. City of San Francisco

119 Cal. 534 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1898

As the plaintiff is a private corporation, without any of the elements of a public agency, these proceedings did not, under the principles declared in California Academy of Sciences v. … (Board of Education v. Martin, 92 Cal. 209 .) The judgment is affirmed. Van Fleet, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

Ex parte Casinello

62 Cal. 538 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1881

Speaking of the police power, in the case of Commonwealth v. … J., delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of Vermont, in the case of Thorpe v.

Wickersham v. Brittan

93 Cal. 34 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1892

(Magruder v. Swann, 25 Md. 214 . See also State v. Clarke, 5 Nev. 111 ; Police Commissioners v. Louisville, 3 Bush, 602 ; Speed v. Crawford, 3 Met. (Ky.) 207; State ex rel. Coogan v. Barbour, 53 Conn. 76 ; Conger v. … In Fraser v.

City of Oakland v. Garrison

194 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1924

In Conlin v. Board of Supervisors, 114 Cal. 404 [33 L. R. … In Sinton v. Ashbury, supra, it was taken for granted that the opening of a single street within the city of San Francisco was a matter of interest and concern to the entire municipality. In Reclamation Board v.

Bendix Forest Products Corp. v. Division of Occupational Safety & Health

25 Cal. 3d 465 · California Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1979

(See Carmona v. Division of Industrial Safety, supra, 13 Cal.3d 303, 308, fn. 4 ; Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equal. (1936) 6 Cal.2d 557 [ 59 P.2d 119 ]; 5 Witkin, Cal. … (Crees v. California State Board of Medical Examiners (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 195 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 621 ].)

Coglan v. Beard

65 Cal. 58 · California Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1884

In People v. Livingston, 79 N. … In Coveny v.

Overland Publishing Co. v. H. S. Crocker Co.

193 Cal. 109 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1924

Details of the practices of said Board of Trade are then pleaded, substantially as set forth in the case of Overland Publishing Co. v. Union Lithograph Co. et al., 57 Cal. … Co. v.