Case law

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.

Weaver v. City & County of San Francisco

111 Cal. 319 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1896

Itemized demands therefor, duly verified, were presented to the officers of the defendant, and approved by the standing committee on the fire department of the board of supervisors, but the auditing committee of said board … (San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel, 62 Cal. 641 ; Shaw v. Statler, 74 Cal. 258 ; Schwartz v. Wilson, 75 Cal. 502 ; Lewis v. Widber, 99 Cal. 412 ; McGowan v. Ford,, 107 Cal. 177 ; Smith v. Broderick, 307 Cal. 644 .)

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.

Quinn v. Dresbach

75 Cal. 159 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1888

(Flanagan v. Brown, 70 Cal. 257 .) … (Bank of Stockton v. Jones, 65 Cal. 437 ; and compare Preston v. Gray-son County, 30 Gratt. 497 ; Gibson v. Pew, 3 J. J. Marsh. 223.)

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.

Greene v. Superior Court

37 Cal. 2d 307 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1951

(Browne v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 593, 597-598 [ 107 P.2d 1 , 131 A.L.R. 276 ]; Myers v. Superior Court, 75 Cal.App.2d 925, 929 [ 172 P.2d 84 ]; Gorman v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 72 P.2d 774 ].) … (Browne v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 593, 597-598 [ 107 P.2d 1 , 131 A.L.R. 276 ]; Murphy 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.

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.

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 ].)

Jackson v. State Bar

23 Cal. 3d 509 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1979

(Toll v. State Bar (1974) 12 Cal.3d 824, 831 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 427 , 528 P.2d 35 ].) The board was correct in declaring that disbarment is an appropriate penalty for misappropriation of client funds (Oliver v. … (Segretti v.

Walsh v. Kirby

13 Cal. 3d 95 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1974

v. … (Kirby v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (May 7, 1973) 1 Civ. 32498.)

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 .)

People v. Central Pacific Railroad

105 Cal. 576 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1895

(Randolph v. Wood, 49 N. J. L. 85.) … (San Francisco v. Flood, 64 Cal. 504 ; Lake County v. Sulphur Bank etc. Min. Co., 68 Cal. 14 ; Dear v. Varnum, 80 Cal. 86 .) The value given by the appellant in its statement was not conclusive upon the state board.

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.

Spindell v. State Bar

13 Cal. 3d 253 · California Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1975

(Bernstein v. … As in Lewis v.

People ex rel. Laine v. Tyrrell

87 Cal. 475 · California Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1891

(People v. Tilton, 37 Cal. 614 ; People v. Bissell, 49 Cal. 407 .) … (People v. Murray, 70 N. Y. 526 .) And this is also the doctrine of the case of Conger v. Gilmer, 32 Cal. 76 . It follows that the court below erred in rendering judgment for the relator upon the findings.

Dyer v. North

44 Cal. 157 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

Whether, as a matter of fact, the publication should be ordered by the Board, is a question upon which the Judges of this Court were not agreed in Chambers v. … In Doble v.