Case law

City of Oakland v. Burns

46 Cal. 2d 401 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1956

City of Oakland v. … Code, § 1007 * ; Henry Cowell Lime & Cement Co. v. State, 18 Cal.2d 169 at 172 [2] [ 114 P.2d 331 ]; Bartholomew v.

Hamilton v. County of San Diego

108 Cal. 273 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1895

(State v. Carroll, 38 Conn. 449 ; 9 Am. Rep. 409 ; 5 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 103.) The order of the board of supervisors purporting to create the district was the formal exercise of legislative power (Hughes v. … (State v. Leatherman, 38 Ark. 81 ; see further, Ashley v. Board of Supervisors, 60 Fed. Rep. 55; Aller v. Town of Cameron, 3 Dill. 198 ; School Dist. No. 2 v. School Dist. No. 1, 45 Kan. 543 ; City of St. Louis v.

Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v. Superior Court

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 93 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1999

(See, e.g., Birkenfeld v. … In Pennell v.

Haskell v. Cornish

13 Cal. 45 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

The rule is thus stated in Pentz v. … (Rathbone v. Budlong, 15 Johns. R. I; Owen v. Gooch, 2 Esp. R. 567; Mott v. Hicks, 1 Cow. 513 , and the cases there referred to in the Opinion of the Judges; Rossiter v. Rossiter, 8 Wendell, 494 .)

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 .)

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.

Bates v. Twist

138 Cal. 52 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1902

Co. v. … In White v.

County of Sutter v. McGriff

130 Cal. 124 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1900

(Fraser v. Oakdale Lumber etc. Co., 73 Cal. 188 ; Bernero v. South British and Nat. Ins. Co., 65 Cal. 386 ; City Carpet etc. Works v. Jones, 102 Cal. 506, 510 .) 3. … (Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488, 509 ; White v. Hay den, 126 Cal. 621 .) 7. The evidence of the plaintiff wholly failed to show any compliance with the order of the hoard.

Clark v. City of Manhattan Beach

175 Cal. 637 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1917

This very point was raised in McCarthy v. … See, also, as declaring this same principle, People v. Prewitt, 124 Cal. 7 , [ 56 Pac. 619 ]; Davis v. Grunig, 143 Cal. 342 , [ 76 Pac. 1102 ].

City & County of San Francisco v. Flood

64 Cal. 504 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1884

The assessment here is sustained by the rules laid down in People v. Holladay, 25 Cal. 300 ; People v. MeCreery, 34 Cal. 434 ; Falkner v. Hunt, 16 Cal. 167 ; and People v. Sneath, 28 Cal. 612 .) In People v. … To sustain this position People v. Holladay, 25 Cal. 300 , is cited. The action of the board in dealing with the valuation of the property listed in the roll is based upon evidence which may be adduced before the board.

People v. Bennett

17 Cal. 4th 373 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1998

Larson replaced Busher on the corporation’s board of directors with two members of her own family. … Justice Brown would resolve this case under the “inevitable discovery” doctrine (see Nix v.

People v. Murtishaw

48 Cal. 3d 1001 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1989

Moreover, I believe the majority's equation of " Brown error" in a 1978 death penalty law case ( People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal. … Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 541 , fn. omitted, italics added, revd. on another ground sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ]]; see also People v.

Spreckels v. Graham

194 Cal. 516 · California Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1924

Later, in the leading case of Patton v. Board of Health, 127 Cal. 388 [ 78 Am. St. … The case of People v. Smith, 206 N. Y. 231 [ 99 N. E. 568 ], which was governed by the provisions of the New York constitution, and the cases of Eaton v. Brown, 96 Cal. 371 [ 31 Am. St. Rep. 225 , 17 L. R.

People v. McCreery

34 Cal. 432 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

Naglee, and The People v. … In the People v.

Doran v. Foster

189 Cal. 610 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1922

The constitution provides: “It shall be the duty of said board of freeholders, within one hundred and twenty days after the result of such election shall have been declared by said board of supervisors, to prepare and propose … Authority for this proposition will be found in People v. Gunn, 85 Cal. 246 [ 24 Pac. 718 ], People v. Riverside, 66 Cal. 290 [ 5 Pac. 350 ], and Blanchard v. Hartwell, 131 Cal. 263 ( [ 63 Pac. 349 ].

Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Commission

233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 45 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 2018

(Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. … In Board of Education v.

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.

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.

Mullins v. Rockwell International Corp.

15 Cal. 4th 731 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1997

As in our recent decision in Romano v. … Further, Brown did not review plaintiff’s job performance for 1988 or 1989, despite company policy that required Brown to do so.

Bernstein v. State Bar

6 Cal. 3d 909 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1972

(Trusty v. State Bar (1940) 16 Cal.2d 550, 551-552 [ 107 P.2d 10 ]; Bruns v. State Bar (1941) 18 Cal.2d 667, 668 [ 117 P.2d 327 ].) … In Peck v.