Case law

Glenn County v. Johnston

129 Cal. 404 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1900

(See Johnston v. Board of Supervisors, 104 Cal. 390 , decided October 5, 1894.) … Co. v. Neale, 78 Cal. 80, 82 , and Butte County v. Boydston, 64 Cal. 110 .

De Merritt v. Weldon

154 Cal. 545 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1908

The case of Board of Supervisors v. Westbrook, 64 Miss. 312 , [ 1 South. 352 ], is in point on the latter proposition. … As was said in Porter v.

People v. Pittsburg Railroad

67 Cal. 625 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1885

Neither City and County of San Francisco v. Flood, 64 Cal. 504 , nor Orena v. Sherman, 61 Cal. 101 , is in conflict with the views above expressed. … In both the assessment was made by the assessor prior to the meeting of the county board of equalization. In Orena v.

Dowling v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society

143 Cal. 425 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1904

There is no material difference between the facts here and those in the case of Edwards v. Berlin, 123 Cal. 544 . … (McDonald v. Conniff, 99 Cal. 386 ; Williams v. Bergin, 116 Cal. 56 ; Edwards v. Berlin, 123 Cal. 544 ; Reid v. Clay, 134 Cal. 207, 212 .)

Hill v. State Bar of California

14 Cal. 2d 732 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1939

At the hearing before the board of governors, petitioner was represented by counsel. … (Carpenter v. State Bar, 211 Cal. 358 [ 295 Pac. 23 ], and cases therein cited; Johnson v. State Bar, 4 Cal. (2d) 744, 758 [ 52 Pac. (2d) 928 ].)

In Re Urias

65 Cal. 2d 258 · California Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1966

(Zitny v. State Bar (1966) 64 Cal.2d 787, 789 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 415 P.2d 521 ].) … (Sturr v. State Bar (1959) 52 Cal.2d 125 134 [ 338 P.2d 897 ].)

Watt v. Smith

89 Cal. 602 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1891

The powers of the board are defined by section 2137 of the Political Code, but neither in that nor in any other statute existing at the time this suit was commenced is the board expressly authorized to sue; such authority … And, therefore, if to accomplish their official duty or to discharge their trust it is necessary to sue, power to do so is implied. ( Cornell v. Town of Guilford, 1 Denio, 510 , and authorities cited.)

Gutierrez v. Mofid

39 Cal. 3d 892 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1985

(P. 99, citing Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 776-777 [ 270 P.2d 1 ]; Mock v. Santa Monica Hospital (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 57, 64 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 555 ]; see also Brown v. … The instant case, like Sanchez, supra, is distinguishable on its facts from Brown, supra.

San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Railways v. Johnson

210 Cal. 138 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1930

The following cases are to the same effect: Dunne v. Rock Island County, 283 Ill. 628 [ 119 N. E. 591 ]; Sisters of Third Order of St. Francis v. Board of Review of Peoria County, 231 Ill. 317 [ 83 N. … E. 272 ] ; Board of Commrs. of Tulsa County v. Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother, 141 Okl. 32 [ 283 Pac. 984 ]; Salt Lake Lodge No. 85, B. P. O. F., v. Groesbeck, 40 Utah, 1 [Ann.

Simpson v. Cranston

56 Cal. 2d 63 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1961

(Adams v. City of Modesto (1960), 53 Cal.2d 833, 835 [ 350 P.2d 529 ]; Martin v. Henderson (1953), 40 Cal.2d 583, 589-590 [ 255 P.2d 416 ].) … Martin v.

SAM ANDREWS'SONS v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.

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

v. … v.

Eisley v. Mohan

31 Cal. 2d 637 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1948

Reliance is also placed upon the decision in State Land Settlement Board v. … (State Land Settlement Board v. Henderson, supra.) As to that property, the court quoted with approval from San Pedro etc. R. R. Co. v.

Neal Publishing Co. v. Rolph

169 Cal. 190 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1915

In this connection the case of United States v. … The only authority cited by appellant in support of this resolution is the case of Stanley-Taylor Co. 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.

Marshall v. Ferguson

23 Cal. 65 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

(Browne on Stat. of Frauds, Secs. 250-258; Green v. Armstrong, 1 Denio, 550 ; Smith v. Bryan, 5 Maryland, 141 ; Safford v. Annis, 7 Maine, 168 ; Bostwick v. Leach, 3 Day, 476 .) … (Browne on Stat. of Frauds, Sec. 322 ; Chaplin v. Rogers, 1 East. 192.) There was sufficient evidence of plaintiff’s title to the crops, and his right to sell them.

Apple Valley Ranchos Water Co. v. County of San Bernardino

63 Cal. 2d 870 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1966

(See De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego (1955) 45 Cal.2d 546, 563 [10-11] [ 290 P.2d 544 ].) … Guaranty Liquidating Corp. v.

People Ex Rel. Levin v. County of Santa Clara

37 Cal. 2d 335 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1951

The San Buenaventura case was followed by Butters v. Board of Supervisors, 217 Cal. 515 [ 19 P.2d 983 ] and Ault v. … Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

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 .

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.

C. Adolph Low & Co. v. Austin

1 Cal. Unrep. 638 · California Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1870

The discussion in Brown v. … In the case of Brown v.