Case law

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 .)

Tape v. Hurley

66 Cal. 473 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1885

(Fisher v. … We think the superintendent of schools was improperly joined as a defendant in this action, and that the-court properly dismissed the action as to the board of education. In Ward v.

Brennan v. Riley

3 Cal. 2d 736 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1935

It is well, however, to bear in mind the rule announced, together with its limitation, in McKannay v. Norton, 151 Cal. 711 [ 91 Pac. 598 , 121 Am. St. Rep. 146 , 13 L. R. A. (N. … The judgment in the case of Brennan v. Riley is reversed with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in accordance herewith, and it is ordered that the peremptory writ issue in the case of Foley v. Riley.

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.

Martinelli v. Morrow

172 Cal. 472 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1916

This is an application for mandate, in effect asking this court to declare that certain candidates for the office of members of the board of directors of the Marin Municipal Water District who received a plurality, *473 but … not a majority, of the votes cast at the election held for the purpose of electing the board of directors, were in law duly elected members of the board of directors.

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.

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.

Bradford v. City & County of San Francisco

112 Cal. 537 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 1896

The same doctrine was maintained upon a similar state of facts, and for like reasons, in Merriam v. Board of Supervisors of Yuba County, 72 Cal. 517 . … We are of opinion that there is nothing in the cases of Linden v. Case, supra, and Merriam v. Board of Supervisors of Yuba County, supra, which militates against the right to an injunction in the case at bar.

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.

Edwards v. Berlin

123 Cal. 544 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1899

The objection was overruled in Williams v. Bergin, 116 Cal. 56 . … The board exercises its own judgment in the matter, and delegates nothing to others. (McDonald v. Conniff, 99 Cal. 386 ; Williams v. Bergin, supra.)

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.

Dougherty v. Hitchcock

35 Cal. 512 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

In Himm *522 elman v. … This view is illustrated by the positions taken in Himmelman v. Danos in respect to the provisions of the next section of the statute.

San Christina Investment Co. v. City & County of San Francisco

167 Cal. 762 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1914

See, also, Douglass v. Mayor of Placerville, 18 Cal. 643 ; Wallace v. Mayor of San Jose, 29 Cal. 181 ; Wichman v. City of Placerville, 147 Cal. 162 , [ 81 Pac. 537 ].) … This case is to be distinguished from Green v.

Satterlee v. Bliss

36 Cal. 489 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1869

(Chirac v. Rheinicker, 11 Wheat. 280 ; 1 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 245; Gower v. Emery, 18 Maine, 82; Brown v. Payson, 6 N. H. 448; Beckwith v. Benner, 6 Car. & P. 681.) … If the fence built in 1860 was, as some of the witnesses say, constructed of posts and boards, and three boards or two boards and a cap high, we cannot say that it was not a substantial fence, and that this, in connection

Eaton v. Klimm

217 Cal. 362 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1933

(People v. City of Reedley, 66 Cal. App. 409, 413 [ 226 Pac. 408 ].) This rule is not only applicable to private nuisances (Williams v. Blue Bird Laundry Co., 85 Cal. App. 388 [ 259 Pac. 484 ]; Fendley v. … In McQueen v. Phelan, 4 Cal.

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.

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.

Connor v. Morris

23 Cal. 447 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

(Keller v. Hyde, 20 Cal. 594 .) This objection is therefore untenable. Numerous objections are made to the findings, on the ground that they are defective or insufficient. … There may have been good reasons why the board did not order this claim paid.

Spencer v. City of Los Angeles

180 Cal. 103 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1919

In the cases of Williams v. Corcoran, 46 Cal. 553 , Wills v. Austin, 53 Cal. 152 , and Byrne v. … Co. v. Jordan, 168 Cal. 270 , [ 142 Pac. 839 ]; Craig v. Boone, 146 Cal. 718 , [ 81 Pac. 22 ].) [11] It follows that the judgment against the members of the board is not sustained by the evidence. 4.