Case law

American Bank & Trust Co. v. Community Hospital

36 Cal. 3d 359 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1984

(See Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 882 [ 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].) … (See, e.g., Brown v. Merlo, supra, 8 Cal.3d 855 ; Cooper v. Bray (1978) 21 Cal.3d 841 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 148 , 582 P.2d 604 ]; Monroe v. Monroe (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 388 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 384 ]; Ayer v.

People ex rel. Swift v. Bingham

82 Cal. 238 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1889

done so, the board, as composed thereby, is for the time a legal board, and its doings authoritative. … (People v. Perry, supra; State v. West Wis. R’y Co., 34 Wis. 197 ; State v. Leatherman, 38 Ark. 81 ; People v. Boughton, 5 Col. 487 ; Florida v. Gleason, 12 Fla. 190 ; People v. Keeling, 4 Col. 129 ; State v.

County of Sutter v. Tisdale

136 Cal. 474 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1902

(County of Siskiyou v. Gamlich, 110 Cal. 94 ; County of Sonoma v. Crozier, 118 Cal. 680 ; County of Sutter v. McGriff, 130 Cal. 124 .) … (County of Humboldt v. Dins more, 75 Cal. 604 ; County of Siskiyou v. Gamlich, 110 Cal. 94 ; Levee Dist. No. 9 v. Farmer, 101 Cal. 178 .)

Anton v. San Antonio Community Hospital

19 Cal. 3d 802 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1977

Turner v. Board of Trustees (1976) 16 Cal.3d 818 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 443 , 548 P.2d 1115 ].) … State Board of Education (1955) 45 Cal.2d 255 [ 288 P.2d 862 ] (suspension of teaching credential on conviction of specified crimes); Patton v.

Lynn v. Duckel

46 Cal. 2d 845 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1956

(Un ited States v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.2d 189 at 194 [1] [ 120 P.2d 26 ]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 at 291 [5] [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ]; Myers v. … Lindell Co. v. Board of Permit Appeals, 23 Cal.2d 303, at 314 [ 144 P.2d 4 ].)

Estate of Baird

181 Cal. 742 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1919

Proc., secs. 1666, 1697; Morffew v. San Francisco etc. R. Co., 107 Cal. 594 , [ 40 Pac. 810 ]; Wheeler v. Bolton, 54 Cal. 305 ; Buckley v. Superior Court, 102 Cal. 10 , [ 41 Am. St. Rep. 135 , 36 Pac. 360 ]; Barker v. … Stanford, 53 Cal. 455 ; More v.

People ex rel. Young v. Babcock

114 Cal. 559 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1896

XXII, sec. 1; In re Stuart, 53 Cal. 746 ; Wood v. Board of Election Commrs., 58 Cal. 561 ; In re Guerrero, 69 Cal. 88 .) Consolidated city and county governments are subject to the control of general laws. … (Ex parte Keeney, 84 Cal. 304 ; Thomason v. Ashworth, 73 Cal. 73 .)

Martin v. State Bar

20 Cal. 3d 717 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1978

Ordinarily, we attach great weight to the disciplinary recommendations of the board. (Silver v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal.3d 134, 147 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 528 P.2d 1157 ].) … (Ridley v. State Bar, supra, 6 Cal.3d 551 [disbarment]; Alkow v. State Bar (1971) 3 Cal.3d 924 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 278 , 479 P.2d 638 ] [same]; Grove v. State Bar, supra, 66 Cal.2d 680 [same]; Rock v.

Pryor v. Municipal Court

25 Cal. 3d 238 · California Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1979

(Accord, Sanita v. Board of Police Comnrs. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 993, 997-998 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 380 ].) In Gonzalez v. … (American Civil Liberties Union v. Board of Education (1963) 59 Cal.2d 203, 218 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 700 , 379 P.2d 4 ].)

Pacific Bank v. Stone

121 Cal. 202 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1898

(See, also, Underhill v. Santa Barbara etc. Co., 93 Cal. 300 ; Blen v. Bear River etc. Co., 20 Cal. 603 ; 81 Am. Dec. 132 .) Appellant quotes from Streeten v. … The case does not present an instance of a contract ultra vires (such as Main v.

In Re Cate

207 Cal. 443 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1929

In so doing said court erroneously relied upon and applied certain' expressions in the case of Danford v. Superior Court, 49 Cal. … (Bascomb v.

Weir v. State Bar

23 Cal. 3d 564 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1979

(See Allen v. State Bar, supra, 20 Cal.3d 172, 178-179 ; Codiga v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 788, 793 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 404 , 575 P.2d 1186 ]; Sullins v. … State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 893, 904 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 544 P.2d 921 ]), although we attach great weight to the disciplinary recommendations of the board. (Inniss v.

Hayes v. County of Los Angeles

99 Cal. 74 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1893

Y. 372 ; Corbin v. City of Davenport, 9 Iowa, 239 .) In S. C. V. Peat Fuel Co. v. … In Supervisors v. United States, 4 Wall. 436, a statute of Illinois provided that the board of supervisors “ may, if deemed advisable, levy a special tax,” etc. Mr.

Ex Parte Pfirrmann

134 Cal. 143 · California Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1901

(See also State v. … Amicus curix invokes the doctrine of Davis v.

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.

American Distilling Co. v. City Council of Sausalito

34 Cal. 2d 660 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1950

Proe., § 526, subd. 7; Johnston v. Board of Supervisors, 31 Cal.2d 66 [ 187 P.2d 686 ]; Berkeley High School Dist. v. Coit, 7 Cal.2d 132 [ 59 P.2d 992 ]; Nickerson v. … (Miller & Lux v. Board of Supervisors, 189 Cal. 254 [ 208 P. 304 ]; Shepherd v. Board of Supervisors, 137 Cal.App. 421 [ 30 P.2d 578 ]; Capuchino Land Co. v. Board of Trustees, 34 Cal.App. 239 [ 167 P. 178 ].)

Sullivan v. Triunfo Gold & Silver Mining Co.

29 Cal. 585 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

Hershey v. Reclamation District No. 108

200 Cal. 550 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1927

O’Dea v. … Dist. v. Stone, 23 Idaho, 344 [ 130 Pac. 382 ] ; Nampa etc. Irr. Dist. v. Petrie, 28 Idaho, 227 [153 Pac. 425]; United States v.

Monterey County v. Cushing

83 Cal. 507 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1890

It is urged that inasmuch as the order of the board was that suit should be brought against “V. Cushing,” the fact that he had died twenty days before the order was made rendered the whole proceedings void. … Now, in the present case, Cushing’s name appeared throughout the proceedings before the board as the owner in question. The report of the viewers states that the road described takes 4.13 acres of the lands of V.

Farmers & Merchs.' Bank of L.A. v. City of Los Angeles

151 Cal. 655 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1907

In McCann v. … In Rhoda v.