Case law

Atkins v. Hughes

208 Cal. 508 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1929

In this cause it is ordered that paragraph V of the judgment, which purports to remove L. P. Hughes and G. C. … (Childress v. Dinkelspiel Co., 203 Cal. 262 [ 263 Pac. 801 ].) But for the presence of other questions in the cause. it would be our duty to dismiss the appeal. (Weiss v.

In Re Johannes

213 Cal. 125 · California Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1931

(People v. McNulty, 93 Cal. 427 [ 26 Pac. 597 , 29 Pac. 61 ]; Biaggi v. Ramont, 189 Cal. 675 [ 209 Pac. 892 ].) … This is conceded and was recognized in People v.

Danskin v. San Diego Unified School District

28 Cal. 2d 536 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1946

board may require the making and delivery to such governing board, by such person or any members of such organization, of affidavits in form prescribed by such governing board, stating facts showing whether or not such person … (Payroll Guaranty Association v. Board of Education, 27 Cal.2d 197, 203 [ 163 P.2d 433 , 161 A.L.R. 1300 ].)

Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors of Colusa Cty.

49 Cal. 662 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

Commissioners to view and make an assessment had been appointed by the Board of Supervisors in November, 1871. These Commissioners never made an assessment. Their only attempt in that direction was held in People v. … Under these circumstances, the case provided for by Sec. 3,459 has not arisen, and no further duty in that behalf has been cast upon the Board of Supervisors.

Kennedy v. McInturff

217 Cal. 509 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1933

(Mayor etc. of New York v. Sands, 105 N. Y. 210 [ 11 N. E. 820 ] ; Armstrong v. Village of Ft. Edward, 159 N. Y. 315 [53 N. E. 1116 ]; Matter of Sage v. Broderick, 255 N. Y. 19 [ 173 N. E. 908 ].) … The last case cited referred to the case of Smith v.

Schultz v. State Bar

15 Cal. 3d 799 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1975

Although in matters of discipline, as opposed to factual findings, the board’s recommendation is weighed more heavily than that of the local administrative committee (Toll v. … wrongdoing (Hallinan v.

Douglass v. Todd

96 Cal. 655 · California Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1892

(Fr ancis v. Cox, 33 Cal. 323 ; Gracier v. Weir, 45 Cal. 53 .) … To the same effect is Brown v. Brown, 37 Minn. 128 . In both these states the language of the statute as to the ground of relief is the same as ours.

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.

Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. County of Los Angeles

43 Cal. 2d 121 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1954

(Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 512 [ 234 P. 388 ].) … Assn. v. Hillside etc. Park, 70 Cal.App.2d 609, 616 [ 161 P.2d 618 ]; Cantrell v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 87 Cal.App.2d 471, 475 .)

Matter of Hughes

159 Cal. 360 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1911

Co. v. Placer Co., 43 Cal. 367; Andrews' v. Pratt, 44 Cal. 318 ; Central Pacific B. B. Co. v. Placer Co., 46 Cal. 670 ; Whitney v. Board, 14 Cal. 499 ; People v. Burney, 29 Cal. 460 ; People v. … (Whitney v. Board, 14 Cal. 499 .)

People v. Parker

37 Cal. 639 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

(Commonwealth v. Hanley, 9 Penn. St. 513; State v. Lusk, 18 Mo. 333 .) … (Stratton v. Oulton; People v. Stratton, supra.)

Symons v. City & County of San Francisco

115 Cal. 555 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1897

(Coster v. Mayor, 43 N. Y. 414 ; King’s County Fire Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 101 N. Y. 411 ; Smith v. Boston, 7 Cush. 254 ; Castle v. County of Berkshire, 11 Gray, 26 ; East St. Louis v. Flynn, 119 Ill. 200 ; 59 Am. … Rep. 795 ; Heller v. Atchison etc. R. R. Co., 28 Kan. 625 ; Kimball v. Homan, 74 Mich. 699 .) In Heller v. Atchison etc. R. R.

Uhl v. Badaracco

199 Cal. 270 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1926

Co. v. … (Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 66 Cal. App. 157 [ 225 Pac. 783 ].)

People v. Marshall

114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 227 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 2001

114 Cal.Rptr.2d 227 (2001) 35 P.3d 416 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Phillip Cameron MARSHALL, Defendant and Appellant. No. S091666. Supreme Court of California. November 28, 2001. … GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, J., BAXTER, J., WERDEGAR, J., BROWN, J., and MORENO, J., concur.

In re Kay

1 Cal. 3d 930 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1970

Commonwealth (1936) 266 Ky. 235 [ 98 S.W.2d 909 ] ($300 fine); State v. Stuth (1895) 11 Wash. 423 [ 39 P. 665 ] (unstated fine); Brown v. State (1871) 46 Ala. 175 (unstated fine); Marvin v. … State (1897) 103 Ga. 61 [ 29 S.E. 431 ] (loud whispering heard by one other person at the meeting); compare Brown v.

In Re Stewart

24 Cal. 2d 344 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1944

(Roberts v. Duffy, 167 Cal. 629, 634 [ 140 P. 260 ].) … under his application filed with said board.

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.

People v. Central Pacific Railroad

105 Cal. 576 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1895

(Randolph v. Wood, 49 N. J. L. 85.) … (San Francisco v. Flood, 64 Cal. 504 ; Lake County v. Sulphur Bank etc. Min. Co., 68 Cal. 14 ; Dear v. Varnum, 80 Cal. 86 .) The value given by the appellant in its statement was not conclusive upon the state board.

Noakes v. City of Los Angeles

179 Cal. 38 · California Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1918

Flores, foreman in charge of the work, and the individuals composing the Board of Public Service Commissioners. Plaintiffs were nonsuited as to their asserted causes of action against the members of the board. … (Boyle v. Coast Improvement Co., 27 Cal. App. 714 , [ 151 Pac. 25 ] ; Slaughter v. Goldberg, Bowen & Co., 26 Cal. App. 318 , [ 147 Pac. 90 ].)

Smith v. Cofran

34 Cal. 310 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

.: In Smith v. … or diagram in any particular, and to make and issue a new warrant, assessment and diagram to conform to the decisions of said Board in relation thereto, at their option.”