Case law

Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Ass'n

69 Cal. 2d 850 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1968

(Holtz v. United Plumbing & Heating Co., supra, 49 Cal.2d 501, 506-507 . See also Nelson v. Abraham, supra, 29 Cal.2d 745, 749; Spier v. Lang (1935) 4 Cal.2d 711, 716 [ 53 P.2d 138 ]; Quinn v. … Martter v. Byers (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 375, 384 [ 171 P.2d 101 ]; Lasry v. Lederman (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 480, 486 [ 305 P.2d 663 ]; Stilwell v.

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 ].)

Taylor v. Mott

123 Cal. 497 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1899

This constitutes a gift and makes the statute subject to the constitutional objections already pointed out and which have already been laid down by the supreme court in the following cases: Conlin v. … Board of Supervisors, 99 Cal. 17 ; 37 Am. St. Rep. 17 ; Patty v. Colgan, 97 Cal. 251 ; Bourn v. Hart, 93 Cal. 321 ; 27 Am. St. Rep. 203 .

Flinn v. Shafter Realty Co.

190 Cal. 316 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1923

(Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 ; Mahoney v. Braverman, 54 Cal. 565 ; Fanning v. Schammel, 68 Cal. 428 [ 9 PaC. 427 ] ; Dougherty v. Coffin, 69 Cal. 454 [ 10 Pac. 672 ] ; Raisch v. … San Francisco, 80 Cal. 1 [ 22 Pac. 22 ] ; Dougherty v. Nevada Bank, 81 Cal. 162 [ 22 Pac. 513 ] ; Kelso v. Cole, 121 Cal. 121 [ 53 Pac. 353 ].) In Oakland Paving Co. v.

Gassman v. State Bar

18 Cal. 3d 125 · California Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1976

(Doyle v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 973, 978 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 544 P.2d 937 ]; Waterman v. State Bar (1936) 8 Cal.2d 17, 20 [ 63 P.2d 1133 ].) … In matters of discipline, however, the recommendation of the Board is to be weighed more heavily than that of the local administrative committee. (Schultz v.

Uhl v. Collins

217 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1932

(See State v. Seattle, 59 Wash. 68 [ 109 Pac. 309 ] ; Littell v. Board of Supervisors, 198 Ill. 205 [ 65 N. E. 78 ]; Territory v. Mayor and City Council of Roswell, 16 N. M. 340 [ 117 Pac. 846 , 35 L. R. A. (N. … Jordan, 200 *4 Cal. 170 [ 252 Pac. 577 ], wherein we commented upon McAulay v. Board of Supervisors, 178 Cal. 628 [ 174 Pac. 30 ], and Covell v. Lee, 71 Cal.

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 ].)

Cain v. State Bar

21 Cal. 3d 523 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1978

This is a proceeding to review the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of California (board) that petitioner, admitted to the bar in 1962, be disbarred from the practice of law. … The board’s findings, derived from its evaluation of conflicting testimony, are entitled to great weight. (Himmel v. State Bar (1971) 4 Cal.3d 786, 794 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 484 P.2d 993 ].)

Washer v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n

21 Cal. 2d 822 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1943

Proc., sec. 460; Williams v. Seiglitz, supra; Harris v. Zanone, supra; Semple v. Andrews, supra; Dewing v. Blodgett, supra.) … his pleading any statement of facts made by the board in deciding the matter before it.

People v. County of Marin

26 L.R.A. 659 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1894

In Bolger v. … In Flagg v.

City of San Jose v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.

California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2025

(Gassman v. Governing Board (1976) 18 Cal.3d 137, 148.) … 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.

Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District v. Riley

194 Cal. 624 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1924

issuance of said writ. ' The discussion of the subject as to whether this writ should or should not issue begins appropriately with the decision of this court in the case of Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. etc. v. … Talcing up the discussion of these matters at the point where it was left at the time of the decision of this court in the former case of Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District etc. v.

Freeman v. Barnum

131 Cal. 386 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1901

The statute only authorized the board to pay an additional assistant. That they may do this follows from the views expressed in Tulare County v. May, 118 Cal. 303 . … In my judgment, the board could also cause the appointee to be discharged, when in their judgment, his services were no longer required (Ford v.

Apple Valley Ranchos Water Co. v. County of San Bernardino

63 Cal. 2d 870 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1966

(See De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego (1955) 45 Cal.2d 546, 563 [10-11] [ 290 P.2d 544 ].) … Guaranty Liquidating Corp. v.

Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School District

39 Cal. 3d 878 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1985

(D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 16 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ]; see Builders Assn, of Santa Clara-Santa Cruz Counties v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.3d 225, 232-233 .) … (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 17 , italics in original.) Petitioner has failed to carry this burden.

Williams v. Bergin

129 Cal. 461 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1900

(Williams v. Bergin, 116 Cal. 56 .) … The matter was one for the board of supervisors, and their action is conclusive. But the matter is jurisdictional, and the defect one that could not have been corrected on appeal. The case of Miller v.

Alhambra City School District v. Mize

2 Cal. 3d 806 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1970

(County of Sacramento v. Hickman (1967) 66 Cal.2d 841, 845 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 428 P.2d 593 ]; Corona etc. Hospital Dist. v. Superior Court (1964) 61 Cal.2d 846, 850 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 395 P.2d 817 ].) … The governing board of the district is the Alhambra City Board of Education. Pursuant to section 1002 of the California Education Code, the board has prosecuted this action in the name of the district.

Haight v. Marin Municipal Water District

208 Cal. 753 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1930

(Johnson v. Schimpf, 197 Cal. 43, 48 [ 239 Pac. 401 ].) The court found that all the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint were true. … Under our construction of the complaint and the issues, the so-called rule of consequential damages, commonly called the Baxendale rule (Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341), applied in Hunt Bros. v.

Giovanazzi v. State Bar

28 Cal. 3d 465 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1980

This court has repeatedly held that it is for it and not the board to fix the discipline in any particular case. (See, e.g., Martin v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 717, 723 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 214 , 575 P.2d 757 ]; Lester v. … We also attach great weight to the discipline recommended by the board. (Martin v. State Bar, supra, 20 Cal.3d 717, 723 .)