Case law

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.

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 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.

Kennedy v. Miller

97 Cal. 429 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1893

By virtue of this legislative authority, each school district becomes a public corporation (Estate of Bulmer, 59 Cal. 131 ; Hughes v. … A board of education within a city has only the same right to make a requisition upon the board of supervisors to levy a tax for school purposes upon the taxable property within the city that has the board of trustees within

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.

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 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.

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 .)

Pasadena City High School District v. Upjohn

206 Cal. 775 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1929

(See Bacon Service Corp. v. Huss, 199 Cal. 21 [ 248 Pac. 235 ]; Mordecai v. Board of Supervisors, 183 Cal. 434 [ 192 Pac. 40 ].) … In Veterans’ Welfare Board v. Riley, 189 Cal., at page 161 *781 [22 A. L.

Housing Authority v. City of Los Angeles

40 Cal. 2d 682 · California Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1953

Clunie, 120 Cal. 29 [ 52 P. 44 ]; Brown v. Town of Sebastopol, 153 Cal. 704 [ 96 P. 363 , 19 L.R.A.N.S. 178 ]; Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.2d 309 [ 44 P.2d 547 ]; Sutro v. … In Tyra v. Board of Police Etc.

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.

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 .

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.

Ex Parte Pfirrmann

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

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

Gabrielli v. Knickerbocker

12 Cal. 2d 85 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1938

(Leoles v. Landers, 302 U. S. 656 [58 Sup. Ct. 364, 82 L. Ed. 507 ]; Hering v. State Board of Education of New Jersey, 303 U. S. 624 [58 Sup. Ct. 752, 82 L. Ed. 1087 ].) … A similar decision was rendered in dismissing an appeal (Hering v. State Board of Education, etc., supra) from the judgment of the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey in Hering v.

Sandelin v. Collins

1 Cal. 2d 147 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1934

(See Butler Hotel Co. v. United States, 35 Fed. (2d) 76; Id., 281 U. S. 733 [50 Sup. Ct. 248, 74 L. Ed. 1149 ]; Briggs v. United States, 45 Fed. (2d) 479; Rossi v. United States, 16 Fed. (2d) 712.) 2. … A violation of any of the provisions of the act or of any order, rule or regulation of the board, or of any of the terms and conditions of a license issued by the board is made a misdemeanor.

Swasey v. County of Shasta

141 Cal. 392 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1903

district attorney and signed by the chairman of the board, etc. … Thus in Wright v. Evans, 2 Abb. Pr. N.

Horn v. County of Ventura

24 Cal. 3d 605 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1979

(Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313 [ 94 L.Ed. 865 , 872-873, 70 S.Ct. 652 ]; Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court (1950) 36 Cal.2d 538, 549 [ 225 P.2d 905 ]; e.g. Beck v. … City of Claremont (1958) 49 Cal.2d 826, 834 [ 323 P.2d 71 ]; Johnston v. Board of Supervisors (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, 74 [ 187 P.2d 686 ]; Tandy v.

Berry v. Kowalsky

95 Cal. 134 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1892

Code, secs. 1636, 1644-1646; Callahan v. Stanley, 57 Cal. 476 .) … of the board, the testimony was conflicting.”

Warren v. Chandos

115 Cal. 382 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1896

In Bolton v. … (Dougherty v. Hitchcock, 35 Cal. 512 ; Brock v. Luning, 89 Cal. 316 ; Manning v. Den, 90 Cal. 610 .)