Case law

Sullivan v. State Bar

50 Cal. 2d 491 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1958

In so recommending, the board also took into consideration the three-months’ suspension ordered in 1955. (Sullivan v. State Bar (1955), supra, 45 Cal.2d 112 .) The matter is now before this court for review. 1. … Although petitioner pleads that his difficulties, as in the previous disciplinary matter (Sullivan v.

City of Long Beach v. Department of Industrial Relations

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 518 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2004

(See Roberts v. … L, Baxter, 1, Werdegar, L, Brown, L, and Moreno, I., concurred. Further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated.

People Ex Rel. Murphy v. Col

132 Cal. 334 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1901

To the same effect are State v. Gardner, 3 S. D. 553; State v. Cobb, 2 Kan. 32 . The case of People v. Babcock, 123 Cal. 308 , is not in conflict with what has been said. … (People v. Budd, supra; People v. Mathewson, 47 Cal. 446 ; Sawyer v. Haydon, 1 Nev. 75 .)

Lehmuth v. Long Beach Unified School District

53 Cal. 2d 544 · California Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1960

(Satariano v. Sleight, 54 Cal.App.2d 278, 284 [6a] [ 129 P.2d 35 ]; cf. 160 A.L.R 157; Lehmann v. Los Angeles City Board of Education, 154 Cal.App.2d 256 [ 316 P.2d 55 ].) … (Bates v. Escondido U. H.

Mills v. State Bar

6 Cal. 2d 565 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1936

The matter came before the Board of Governors for further hearing, which included a sworn statement made by petitioner to the board. … (Mills v. State Bar, 211 Cal. 579 [ 296 Pac. 280 , 297 Pac. 19 ].)

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.

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.

Glover v. the State Bar

13 Cal. 2d 229 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1939

As stated in Shaeffer v. … (Maggart v. State Bar, 7 Cal. (2d) 495 [ 61 Pac. (2d) 451 ]; Mills v. State Bar, 6 Cal. (2d) 565, 567 [ 58 Pac. (2d) 1273 ].) It is therefore ordered that petitioner, George A.

City of San Diego v. Dauer

97 Cal. 442 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1893

In Kennedy v. … of education in cities are the same as those of boards of trustees in other school districts.

Conservatorship of Wendland

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 511 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2000

Rose Wendland, etc., Appellant, v. Florence Wendland et al., Respondents. Robert Wendland, Appellant. No. S087265. Supreme Court of California. June 21, 2000. Petition for review GRANTED. … GEORGE, C.J., MOSK, J., KENNARD, J., BAXTER, J., WERDEGAR, J., CHIN, J., and BROWN, J., concur.

Darley v. Ward

28 Cal. 3d 257 · California Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1980

Alford v. Pierno (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 691 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; Ward v. County of Riverside (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 353, 358-359 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 46 ] [tape available but apparently not offered].) … Woodard v.

People v. Lara

54 Cal. 4th 896 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2012

We recently rejected a similar argument in People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 328-330 (Brown).) … (Brown, at pp. 328- 329.) 11 Cal.App.4th 932, 936-937; People v. Duesler, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d 273, 276- 277.)

Ventura County v. Clay

119 Cal. 213 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1897

(Ventura County v. Clay, supra.) … (Turner v. Caruthers, 17 Cal. 432 ; Clark v. Willett, 35 Cal. 534 ; Missouri v. Luce, 62 Fed. Rep. 419.)

Hughson v. Crane

115 Cal. 404 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1896

the board levied an assessment of $40,855.51. … It was held in Tregea v.

Kasky v. Nike, Inc.

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 511 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2000

97 Cal.Rptr.2d 511 (2000) 2 P.3d 1065 Marc KASKY, Appellant, v. NIKE, INC. et al., Respondents. No. S087859. Supreme Court of California. June 21, 2000. Appellant's petition for review GRANED. … GEORGE, C.J., MOSK, J., KENNARD, J., WERDEGAR, J., and BROWN, J., concur.

Millsberg v. State Bar

6 Cal. 3d 65 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1971

(Himmel v. State Bar, 4 Cal.3d 786, 793-794 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 484 P.2d 993 ]; Ashe v. State Bar, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 133 ; Steiner v. … (Finding V of Disciplinary Board.)

Platt v. City and County of San Francisco

158 Cal. 74 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1910

It was said by this court in Sheehan v. … Certainly such has been the construction uniformly given to this section of the constitution by the legislature ever since the adoption of the constitution (see Board of Railroad Commissioners v. Market St. Ry.

Moulin v. Columbet

22 Cal. 508 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

The defendant sets up as a counter claim an account for board, washing, etc., and further averred that the plaintiff was staying with him for his health, and all services rendered by him were in consideration of his board … As a general rule she would be considered as a visitor, not entitled to pay for her services, or liable to pay for her board. (Andrus v. Foster, 17 Vermont, 556; Guild v. Guild, 15 Pick. 129; Fitch v.

Robinson v. Irish-American Benevolent Society

67 Cal. 135 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1885

The constitution of the society in terms. provides that the board of trustees shall examine all claims of members for sick allowance, and if found correct, order the same paid. … In this case, without even giving the board an opportunity to examine his claim, the plaintiff resorted to suit. (See Anacosta Tribe No. 12, Improved Order of Red Men v. Murbach, 13 Md. 91 ; 71 Am.

Kern River Co. v. County of Los Angeles

164 Cal. 751 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1913

(San Jose Gas Co. v. January, 57 Cal. 614 ; Los Angeles v. Western Union Oil Co., 161 Cal. 206 , [ 118 Pac. 720 ].) Respondent is of the opinion that the case of Los Angeles Gas & Electric Co. v. … In such a case the board of equalization is not the only tribunal to which *756 the taxpayer may apply for relief. (Brenner v. Los Angeles, 160 Cal. 77 , [ 116 Pac. 397 ].)