Case law

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters

17 Cal. 3d 893 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1976

In Labor Board v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1956) 351 U.S. 105 [ 100 L.Ed. 975 , 76 S.Ct. 679 ], and Central Hardware Co. v. … Russell [1958] 356 U.S. 634 ; Youngdahl v. Rainfair [1957] 355 U.S. 131 ; Auto Workers v. Wisconsin Board [1956] 351 U.S. 266 ; United Construction Workers v.

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.

People v. Hagar

52 Cal. 171 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

The order of the Board of Supervisors approving of the petition may be attacked collaterally. (Starbuck v. Murray, 5 Wend. 156 ; People v. Hurlburt, 46 N. Y. 113 ; People v. Knowles, 47 N. … That the petition was not defective in substance was decided in Hagar v. The Board of Supervisors, 47 Cal. 222 .

SAM ANDREWS'SONS v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.

47 Cal. 3d 157 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1988

v. … v.

Franczak v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

19 Cal. 3d 481 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1977

(Loustalot v. Superior Court (1947) 30 Cal.2d 905, 912 [ 186 P.2d 673 ]; Patterson v. Sharp (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 990, 997 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 396 ]; Greitz v. Sivachenko (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 849 [ 313 P.2d 922 ]; Vickich v. … Statute of Limitations” Defendant contends that Patterson v.

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.

Galland v. City of Clovis

103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 711 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2001

(See, e.g., McDaniel v. Board of Education (1996) 44 Cal. App.4th 1618, 1622 , 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 448 ; Hall v. City of Dothan (Ala.1988) 539 So.2d 286, 290 ; Diedrich v. … Dissenting Opinion by BROWN, J.

Harris v. Cooley

171 Cal. 144 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1915

Section 1 provides: “When by any statute of this state power is given to any state or county officer or officers or to any board of supervisors or corporation, or any board of trustees or commissioners, or other person or … The contention of appellant is that it has, and applying the rule laid down in Mack v. Jastro, 126 Cal. 130 , [ 58 Pac. 372 ], we are satisfied that this contention must be sustained.

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.

Los Angeles City High School District v. Quinn

195 Cal. 377 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1925

(Thomas v. Birch, 178 Cal. 483, 489 [ 173 Pac. 1102 ]; Holland v. McCarthy, 173 Cal. 597, 602 [ 160 Pac. 1069 ]; 10 Cal. Jur. 581.) But it is not necessary for us to consider that phase of the case. … (Dyson v. Bradshaw, 23 Cal. 528, 536 .) If he does not comply with the conditions when required, or refuses to comply, the escrow-holder cannot make a valid delivery of the deed to him. (McLaughlin v.

Pacific Coast Co. v. Wells

134 Cal. 471 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1901

order of the board of supervisors, be refunded by the county treasurer.” … (See also People v. Supervisors of Otsego County, 51 N. Y. 401 , and People v. Supervisors of Madison County, 51 N. Y. 443 .) It is claimed that the judgment of the lower court is supported, by the cases of Phelan v.

Greene v. Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

49 Cal. 4th 277 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2010

. *282 The District’s board, the Marin County Board of Supervisors (Board), accepted the Report, adopted written protest procedures pursuant to article Xm D, section 6, scheduled a public hearing on the fee for May 1, 2007 … (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 180 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 487 , 624 P.2d 1215 ].)

Gassner v. McCarthy

160 Cal. 82 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1911

The appellant makes no attack upon the form of the proceedings taken by the board of supervisors or the board of public works. … (Von Schmidt v. Widber, 105 Cal. 151, 157 , [ 38 Pac. 682, 684 ]; Hyatt v. Williams, 148 Cal. 585 , [ 84 Pac. 41 ]; 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 4th ed., secs. 89, 91.)

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.

People v. Acosta

45 Cal. 2d 538 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1955

Cited by defendant to the same effect are People v. … (See People v. Freudenberg (1953), 121 Cal.App.2d 564, 575-576 [ 263 P.2d 875 ]; People v. Rutland (1953), 120 Cal.App.2d 798, 800 [ 261 P.2d 735 ]; cf. People v.

Jones v. Morgan

67 Cal. 308 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1885

A similar complaint to the one under discussion was held to be good by this court in the case of Connor v. Morris, 23 Cal. 451 . … (Huffman v. Board of Commissioners of Greenwood Co. 23 Kan. 281 .) We hold to the doctrine held heretofore by this court in the cases of Andrews v. Pratt, 44 Cal. 317 , and San Diego v. S. D. & L. A. R. R.

Hyland v. State Bar

59 Cal. 2d 765 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1963

Code, § 6083; Hatch v. State Bar, 55 Cal.2d 127, 128 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 808 , 357 P.2d 1064 ].) Moreover, we have reviewed the record and found that the board’s findings and recommendations are sustained by the evidence. … (Wyoming Pacific Oil Co. v. Preston, 171 Cal.App.2d 735 [ 341 P.2d 732 ].)

State v. Superior Court

32 Cal. 4th 1234 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 2004

Opinion BROWN, J. As part of the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code section 900 et seq. 1 establishes certain conditions precedent to the filing of a lawsuit against a public entity. … of Control for the State of California” and “led [plaintiff] to believe that [he was] serving the State Board of Control.”

City of Oakland v. Williams

206 Cal. 315 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1929

Intervener places much emphasis upon the fact that the board had no control of the management of said private corporation and for that reason the present transaction falls within the. rule announced in Egan v. … The case of Veterans’ Welfare Board v. Jordan, 189 Cal. 124 [22 A. L.

County of Solano v. McCudden

120 Cal. 648 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1898

(Smith v. Judge of Twelfth Dist., 17 Cal. 547 ; People v. Henshaw, 76 Cal. 436, 442 ; People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 105 Cal. 576, 584 .) … The principle of Dwyer v. Parker, 115 Cal. 544 , cited by appellant, seems to us inapplicable here.