Case law

Lacy v. Richmond Unified School District

13 Cal. 3d 469 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1975

Davie (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 570 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 114 ], and Leithliter v. … The rule has long been recognized that nothing in tenure laws affects the general power of school boards to reassign teachers. (Mitchell v. Board of Trustees (1935) 5 Cal.App.2d 64, 69 [ 42 P.2d 397 ].)

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.

Ashe v. Zemansky

192 Cal. 83 · California Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1923

The charter of the city and county of San Francisco nowhere expressly .authorizes, the use of voting machines, nor does it expressly confer jurisdiction upon the board of supervisors or the board of election commissioners … Taylor v. Board of Election Commrs., 54 Cal. 404 ; People v. Hoge, 55 Cal. 612 ; Gibbs v. Bartlett, 63 Cal. 117 ; San Francisco v. Broderick, 111 Cal. 302 [ 43 Pac. 960 ]).

Moulton v. Parks

64 Cal. 166 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1883

(Green v. Swift, 47 Cal. 536 .) … In Green v.

McAllister v. Hamlin

83 Cal. 361 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1890

In Smith v. … And when properly exercised, the board of supervisors is not required to supervise the action of the court.” (Aid Society v. Reis, 71 Cal. 634 , and authorities there cited.)

In Re McKenna

16 Cal. 2d 610 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1940

(State Bar v. Superior Court, 207 Cal. 323, 331 [ 278 Pac. 432 ].) … In Bordner v.

Swamp Land District No. 150 v. A.J.

98 Cal. 51 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1893

(Hager v. Board of Supervisors, 51 Cal. 477 .) … It follows, therefore, that although the board of supervisors of that county did not form the district, yet such board is the proper tribunal to which report should be made. (Rclamation District v.

McGregor v. State Bar

24 Cal. 2d 283 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1944

As was said in Townsend v. … As so concluded some six months prior to the board’s determination of the present proceeding, the prior suspension was an appopriate consideration herein. (Mills v.

San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad v. City of Long Beach

172 Cal. 631 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1916

Dec. 96]; Von Schmidt v. Widber, 105 Cal. 157 , [ 38 Pac. 682 ]; Hyatt v. Williams, 148 Cal. 585 , [84 Pac. *635 41]), the attempted passage of the ordinance was void by virtue of the requirements of said section 861. … (Gardella v. Amador County, 164 Cal. 555, 564 , [ 129 Pac. 993 ].)

Patty v. Colgan

18 L.R.A. 744 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1893

There is appropriated the sum of five thousand dollars out of any moneys in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, to be paid to the board of supervisors of San Diego County, to be by said board held in trust and paid … The object of this provision is stated in Stevenson v. Colgan, 91 Cal. 651 . An act directing the controller to draw his warrant in favor of an individual cannot be impeached by evidence aliunde (Rankin v.

Trusty v. State Bar

16 Cal. 2d 550 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1940

(Recht v. State Bar, 218 Cal. 352 [ 23 Pac. (2d) 273 ] ; Nolan v. State Bar, 219 Cal. 759 [ 28 Pac. (2d) 1050 ] ; Sawyer v. State Bar, 220 Cal. 702 [ 32 Pac. (2d) 369 ] ; Oster v. … (Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal. (2d) 75, 79 [ 39 Pac. (2d) 403 ].) In Waterman v.

East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Department of Public Works

1 Cal. 2d 476 · California Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1934

To the same effect see Wulzen v. Board of Supervisors, 101 Cal. 15, 24 [ 35 Pac. 353 , 40 Am. St. … See, also, Mabray v. School Board, 162 Miss. 632 [ 137 So. 105, 106 ].

Leese v. Clark

18 Cal. 535 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

(See Moore v. Wilkinson, 13 Cal. 478 ; Yount v. Howell, 14 Id. 465; Stark v. Barrett, 15 Id. 362; and Ely v. Frisbie, 17 Id. 250.) But the patent has a still further operation and effect. … In Hart v.

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.

City of Berkeley v. Superior Court

26 Cal. 3d 515 · California Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1980

Knudson v. Kearney (1915) 171 Cal. 250 [ 152 P. 541 ], and Alameda Conservation Association v. … (See, e.g., People v. Williams (1884) 64 Cal. 498, 499 [ 2 P. 393 ]; People v.

In Re the Estate of Burke

198 Cal. 163 · California Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1926

(Janin v. Brown, supra; McCann v. Pennie, supra; In re Hincheon, 159 Cal. 755 [36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 303, 116 Pac. 47 ]; McDonald v. O’Shea, 58 Wash. 169 [Ann. Cas. 1912A, 417, 108 Pac. 436 ]; Bambrick v. … (Siboni v. Kirkman, 1 Mees. & W. 418.)" (Janin v. Brown, supra; see, also, McCann v. Pennie, supra; Quick v. Ludbarrow, 3 Bulstrade Rep. 30; Hawkins v. Ball’s Adm., 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 816; Halyburton v.

Hayes v. Kirkwood

136 Cal. 396 · California Supreme Court · May 20, 1902

Such was the case in Tebbe v. … Such was the ease in Russell v. McDowell, 83 Cal. 70 .

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.)

McGrath v. State Bar

21 Cal. 2d 737 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1943

State Bar, supra; Dalzell v. State Bar, supra; Mills v. State Bar, 6 Cal.2d 565 [ 58 P.2d 1273 ] ; Oster v. State Bar, supra; Schaffer v. State Bar, supra; Herron v. State Bar, supra.) … (Bruns v. State Bar, 18 Cal.2d 667 [ 117 P.2d 327 ] ; Waterman v. State Bar, 8 Cal.2d 17 [ 63 P.2d 1133 ] ; Mills v. State Bar, supra; Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal.2d 75 [ 39 P.2d 403 ].)

County of San Diego v. County of Riverside

125 Cal. 495 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1899

But the taxes for the years 1886 and 1887 were not then paid and were not considered or in any manner adjusted by said board of commissioners, or by said boards of supervisors. … It is contended on the authority of Orange County v.