Case law

Wilcox v. Engebretsen

160 Cal. 288 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1911

Board, 79 Cal. 396 , [ 21 Pac. 849 ] Zeigler v. Hawkins, 117 U. S. 683 , [6 Sup. Ct. 919, 29 L. Ed. 1019 ], and Dyer v. Miller, 58 Cal. 585 . … This is settled by the cases of Turrill v. Grattan, 52 Cal. 97 ; Dyer v. Miller, 58 Cal. 585 ; Mulligan v. Smith, 59 Cal. 206 , and Kahn v. Board, 79 Cal. 396 , [ 21 Pac. 849 ], and as to that point there is no dispute.

Viles v. State of California

66 Cal. 2d 24 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1967

(Beckley v. Reclamation Board, 48 Cal.2d 710, 716-718 [4] [ 312 P.2d 1098 ]; Brill v. Fox, 211 Cal. 739, 743-744 [3] [ 297 P. 25]; Waite v. Southern Pacific Co., 192 Cal. 467, 470 [2] [ 221 P. 204 ]; Gore v. … Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Long, 175 Cal.App.2d 149, 154 [5] [ 345 P.2d 568 ]; Security Truck Line v.

Humboldt Savings & Loan Society v. Wennerhold

81 Cal. 528 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1889

(Hubert v. Mendheim, 64 Cal. 226 ; Fresno Canal Co. v. Allen, 67 Cal. 508 .) … (Louisiana State Bank v. Ledoux, 3 La. Ann. 674 ; Anderson v. Longdon, 1 Wheat. 91 ; Union Bank v. Ridgely, 1 Har. & G. 432; Dedham Bank v. Chickering, 3 Pick. 340 .)

People v. Seel

34 Cal. 4th 535 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 2004

BROWN, J., Concurring. On more than one occasion, I have expressed the view that double jeopardy principles most likely extend to certain fact-bound sentencing enhancements. (See People v. … Hernandez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 835, 848-850 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 , 968 P.2d 465 ] (dis. opn. of Brown, J.); People v. Monge (1997) 16 Cal.4th 826, 845-847 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 853 , 941 P.2d 1121 ] (conc. opn. of Brown, J.).)

Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc.

39 Cal. 3d 18 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1985

Sometime prior to May of 1979, they began to discuss the possibility that Tenzer should become a member of the Superscope board of directors (Board). … At the time of the alleged agreement, Tenzer was a member of Super-scope’s Board. As such, he bore a fiduciary relationship to Superscope and to all its stockholders. (Remillard Brick Co. v.

In re DeSilva

33 Cal. 2d 76 · California Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1948

Since the picketing was peaceful, and there was no unlawful objective under state law (see Gerry of California v. … (United States v. Shipp, 203 U. S. 563, 573 [ 27 S.Ct. 165 , 51 L.Ed. 319 ], with citation of cases.)

Haley v. State Bar

60 Cal. 2d 404 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1963

Petitioner has thus utterly failed to sustain his burden of showing lack of support for or injustice in the recommendation of the Board of Governors. (California Rules of Court, rule 59(a) * ; Sullivan v. … (See Bodisco v. State Bar (1962) 58 Cal.2d 495, 498 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 374 P.2d 803 ]; Krieger v. State Bar (1954) 43 Cal.2d 604, 611 [8] [ 275 P.2d 459 ]; cf. Resner v.

Raisch v. City & County of San Francisco

80 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1889

Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 ; Fanning v. Schammel, *5 68 Cal. 428 ; Dougherty v. Coffin, 69 Cal, 454.) … It is not entirely clear that such would be the fact (San Francisco v. Certain Real Estate, 42 Cal, 513; State v. Newark, 37 N. J.

Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

60 Cal. 2d 276 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1963

City of Piedmont, 17 Cal.App.2d 569 [ 52 P.2d 614 , 64 P.2d 399 ]; Richards v. Wheeler, 10 Cal.App.2d 108, 111 [ 51 P.2d 436 ]; Klench v. Board of Pension Fund Comrs., 79 Cal.App. 171 [ 249 P. 56 ]; Jackson v. … In Healy v. Industrial Acc.

Fogg v. Perris Irrigation District

154 Cal. 209 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1908

(People v. Perris Irr. Dist., 142 Cal. 601 , [ 76 Pac. 381]; Fogg v. Perris Irr. Dist., 142 Cal. 18 , [ 76 Pac. 1127 ].) … Crane, 115 Cal. 404 , [ 47 Pac. 120 ]; Stimson v. Alessandro Irr. Dist., 135 Cal. 389 , [ 67 Pac. 496 ; Leeman v. Perris Irr. Dist., 140 Cal. 540 , [ 74 Pac. 24 ]; is not involved in this case and we need not decide it.

Tenner v. State Bar

28 Cal. 3d 202 · California Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1980

We review the recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar (the board) in two consolidated matters. Petitioner has been the subject of previous discipline (Tenner v. … (See, e.g., Hill v.

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.”

People v. Slater

199 Cal. 357 · California Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1926

Brown, was charged with the murder of one James M. … (People v. Cook, 148 Cal. 334 [ 83 Pac. 43 ]; People v. Argentos, 156 Cal. 720 [ 106 Pac. 65 ] ; People v. Kauffman, 152 Cal. 331 [ 92 Pac. 861 ]; People v. Bringhurst, 192 Cal. 748 [ 221 Pac. 897 ] ; People v.

Santa Cruz Rock Pavement Co. v. Broderick

113 Cal. 628 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1896

In Raisch v. … entered into in disregard of such restrictions has been performed, its subsequent promise to pay for such performance may be enforced, would set at naught all limitations upon municipal powers, and, as was said in Sutro v.

Coffey v. Superior Court

147 Cal. 525 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1905

(State v. Slover, 113 Mo. 208 , [ 20 S. W. 788 ].) In Meehem on Public Officers (sec. 457) it is stated that “misconduct in office does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intention. … It is insisted by counsel for petitioner that .his position in this matter is supported by the ruling of this court in Croly v. Board of Trustees of Sacramento, 119 Cal. 229 , [ 51 Pac. 323 ].

People v. Universal Film Exchanges, Inc.

34 Cal. 2d 649 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1950

For Board Use Use Only 1. … Rev. v.

Fanning v. Schammel

68 Cal. 428 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1886

(Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 ; Owens v. Heydenfeldt, 6 W. O. R. 149; Torrens v. Townsend, 6 W. C. … (People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 15 ; People v. McCune, 57 Cal. 153 ; Brady v. King, 53 Cal. 44 .) Judgment affirmed. Boss, J., and McKinstey, J., concurred.

Pac. Sewer Pipe Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co.

185 Cal. 515 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1921

In Hadley v. … (Bur nett v. Stearns, 33 Cal. 468 ; Carter v. Fox, 11 Cal.

Asgari v. City of Los Angeles

15 Cal. 4th 744 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1997

Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. … (Martinez v. California (1980) 444 U.S. 277, 283, fn. 7 [ 100 S.Ct. 553, 558 , 62 L.Ed.2d 481 ]; Examining Board v.

Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation District

70 Cal. 2d 240 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1969

(County of Sonoma v. Santa Rosa (1894) 102 Cal. 426, 431 [ 36 P. 810 ]; see City of Pasadena v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 497, 500 [ 258 P.2d 28 ]; Nash v. … Healy v.