Case law

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.

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.

Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn.

42 Cal. 3d 490 · California Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1986

Co. v. … Similarly, a homeowner’s association and its board may not enforce provisions of the CC&Rs in a way that violates statutory or common law. (See O’Connor v.

Mansfield v. Eagle Box & Manufacturing Co.

136 Cal. 622 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1902

The foregoing from a Wisconsin case is quoted with approval in the three well-considered California cases following: Ingerman v. Moore, 90 Cal. 410 ; 1 Ryan v. Los Angeles etc. Co., 112 Cal. 244 ; Verdelli v. … (Holloway v. Pasadena etc. Ry. Co., 130 Cal. 177 ; Foley v. California Horseshoe Co., 115 Cal. 184 . 2 ) We advise that the judgment and order appealed from be reversed. Smith, C., and Cooper, C., concurred.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .)

In Re Alkow

64 Cal. 2d 838 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1966

It is well established that the findings of the board must be given great weight, although they are not binding upon this court (Grove v. State Bar, 63 Cal.2d 312, 315 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 405 P.2d 553 ]; Werner v. … In recommending this discipline the board took into consideration a three-year suspension ordered in 1952. (Alkow v. State Bar, 38 Cal.2d 257 [ 239 P.2d 871 ].)

In Re Jackson

43 Cal. 3d 501 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1987

The court did not suggest however, that the board must interview any informant in camera. 6 Iowa cases are similar: for example, in Niday v. … Again, the court nowhere suggested that an in camera interview of the informant by the board was required. In Avant v.