Case law

Lundberg v. County of Alameda

46 Cal. 2d 644 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1956

Bank v. Board of Supervisors, 35 Cal.2d 323 [ 217 P.2d 948 ]; Vista Irr. Dist. v. Board of Supervisors, 32 Cal.2d 477 [ 196 P.2d 926 ]; Sherman v. Quinn, 31 Cal.2d 661 [ 192 P.2d 17 ].) … Carr, 322 Ill. 562 [ 153 N.E. 669 ]; Appeal Tax Court v. St. Peter's Academy, *650 50 Md. 321 ; Board of Assessors v. Garland School of Home Making, 296 Mass. 378 [ 6 N.E.2d 374 ]; State 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.

In Re Clark

52 Cal. 2d 322 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1959

(Clark v. State Bar, 39 Cal.2d 161 [ 246 P.2d 1 ].) He is a skilled practitioner and must be deemed to have been aware of the requirements *325 of the Corporate Securities Act. … In People v. Ratliff, 131 Cal.App. 763, 771-772 [ 22 P.2d 245 ], a similar scheme for financing a corporation was held to violate the Corporate Securities Act.

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 .)

Dyer v. Scalmanini

69 Cal. 637 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1886

Valdez, 32 Cal. 276 ; Himmelmann v. Hoadley, 49 Cal. 276 -279; Dyer v. Chase, 52 Cal. 440 ; Dyer v. Ryan, 11 Pac. C. L. J. 253, upholding Dyer v. … (Pickard v. Leers, 6 Ad. & E. 447; Dezell v. Odell, 3 Hill, 219 ; S. C., 38 Am. Dec. 628 ; Willard Canal Company v. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 483 ; Davis v. Davis, 26 Cal. 26 -41.)

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 .)

People v. City of Montebello

192 Cal. 489 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1923

Dist., supra, as decisive of the point involved, but we are of the opinion that the present case, as well as Ahern v. Board of Directors, supra, can be distinguished from the case of In re Central Irr. … For this reason we do not feel constrained to adopt the conclusion reached in Ahern v. Board of Directors, supra. Furthermore, in the case of Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Shepard, 185 U. S. 1 [ 46 L. Ed. 773 , 22 Sup. Ct.

Arnold v. Sullenger

200 Cal. 632 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1927

The conclusive presumption recognized in Galeener v. … (Coulter v. Pool, supra; People v. Wheeler, 136 Cal. 652 [ 69 Pac. 435 ] ; People v. Johnson, 95 Cal. 471 [31 Pac.- 611] ; Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 601 [ 28 Pac. 834 , 29 Pac. 1092 ]; Sarter v.

Dhillon v. John Muir Health

218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 2017

(See Board of Dental Examiners v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1424; see also Gillis v. Dental Bd. of California (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 311, 318.) … Superior Court, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at pages 501-502; and Board of Dental Examiners v.

People v. Lovren

119 Cal. 88 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1897

It is said in People v. Thompson, 111 Cal. 246 , and reaffirmed in People v. … The court had occasion to advert to the crudeness of this provision of the act in the case of People v. Thompson, 111 Cal. 246 .

Finkeldey v. Omnibus Cable Co.

114 Cal. 28 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1896

Co., 137 Mass. 210 ; Briggs v. Union Street Ry. Co., 148 Mass. 72 ; 12 Am. St. Rep. 518 ; Schepers v. Union Depot Ry. Co., 126 Mo. 665 ; Carr v. Eel River etc. R. R. Co., 98 Cal. 366 ; Hagbarth v. St. Paul City Ry. … Co. v. Williams, 140 Ill. 275 .)

In re Hang Kie

69 Cal. 149 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1886

And in the case of Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. … The ease of Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703 , which was also of the same character, lays down the same doctrine.

Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen

57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 320 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2007

(Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) 413 U.S. 49 [ 37 L.Ed.2d 446 , 93 S.Ct. 2628 ]; Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown (1957) 354 U.S. 436 [ 1 L.Ed.2d 1469 , 77 S.Ct. 1325 ].) … For example, the high court has held it permissible for a state to require all films, subject to certain limitations, be submitted to a censor board before exhibition. (Freedman v.

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 ].)

People v. Tribble

4 Cal. 3d 826 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1971

These instructions are in accord with the holding in People v. Brown (1947) 29 Cal.2d 555, 558 [ 176 P.2d 929 ]. … (People v. Smith, supra; People v. Lindsay, supra.)

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.

Isenberg v. California Employment Stabilization Commission

30 Cal. 2d 34 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1947

Com. v. … Com. v. Norins Realty Co., 29 Cal.2d 419 [175 P.2d 217]; California Emp. Stab. Com. v. *43 Morris, 28 Cal.2d 812 [ 172 P.2d 497 ]; Twentieth etc. Lites v. California Dept. Emp., 28 Cal.2d 56 [ 168 P.2d 699 ] ; Briggs v.

Gallagher v. State Bar

28 Cal. 3d 832 · California Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1981

The petitioner has the burden of showing that the findings of the board are not supported by the evidence. (Baranowski v. State Bar (1979) 24 Cal.3d 153 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 752 , 593 P.2d 613 ]; Schullman v. … (Himmel v. State Bar (1971) 4 Cal.3d 786, 794 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 484 P.2d 993 ]; Martin v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 717 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 214 , 575 P.2d 757 ].)

Athearn v. State Bar

20 Cal. 3d 232 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1977

However, in People v. … Farnham v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 605, 609, fn. 4 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 661 , 552 P.2d 445 ]; Black v. State Bar (1972) 7 Cal.3d 676, 688 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 288 , 499 P.2d 968 ]; Barreiro v.

Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 663 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2006

Following negotiations, LAWA would submit a proposed lease to the reviewing authority, the Board of Airport Commissioners (the Board) and, following the Board’s approval of a proposed lease exceeding five years, to the Los … (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 650-651 [ 230 Cal. Rptr. 362 , 725 P.2d 470 ]; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1336 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 893 , 813 P.2d 240 ]; CBS Broadcasting Inc. v.