Case law

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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 ].)

Westlake Community Hospital v. Superior Court

17 Cal. 3d 465 · California Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1976

Proc., § 1094.5; Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 637 [ 234 P.2d 981 ].) … (See also Aschennan v.

Boyd v. City of Santa Ana

6 Cal. 3d 393 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1971

Boyd requested a hearing before the personnel board of the city, and the board after a hearing upheld the termination. … Code, § 4851; Eason v. City of Riverside, 233 Cal.App.2d 190, 193-195 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 408 ]; Hawthorn v. City of Beverly Hills, 111 Cal.App.2d 723 , 727 et seq. [ 245 P.2d 352 ]; Hawthorn v. Industrial Acc.

People v. Wright

30 Cal. 3d 705 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1982

(People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 696 , 602 P.2d 396 ]; People v. … (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 201 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 487 , 624 P.2d 1215 ]; Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Resources Bd., supra, 11 Cal. 3d 801, 817 ; Kugler 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.

Comstock v. County of Yolo

71 Cal. 599 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1887

By the resolution, polling-places were duly fixed, inspectors and judges of the election were appointed, and the clerk of the board was ordered to issue a proclamation, under his hand and the seal of the board, calling an … (Mawson v. Mawson, 50 Cal. 539 .)

Schostag v. Cator

151 Cal. 600 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1907

(Britton v. Board of Commissioners, 129 Cal. 337 , [ 61 Pac. 1115 ].) … Therefore, v/hen an elector desires to register in a manner which will entitle him to vote at the primary election, he must be understood as desiring to act with some party, and not with any other party.

Strong v. County of Santa Cruz

15 Cal. 3d 720 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1975

permit for 177 spaces, and Strong made similar representations to the board. … Code, § 3513 ; Terry v. Bender (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 198 , 214 [ 300 P.2d 119 ]; Western Surgical Supply Co. v. Affleck (1952) 110 Cal.App.2d 388 , 392-393 [ 242 P.2d 929 ].)