Case law

In Re Cowen

27 Cal. 2d 637 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1946

On May 1, 1944, the Adult Authority, successor to the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, reaffirmed the board’s determination. … (In accord are Ebeling v. Biddle (1923; C.C.A. 8th), 291 F. 567, 568 ; Morgan v. Ader *645 hold (1934; C.C.A. 5th), 73 F.2d 171, 172 ; People v. Brophy (1937), 250 App.Div. 831 [ 294 N.Y.S. 855 ]; Moulthrop v.

DeMille v. American Federation of Radio Artists

31 Cal. 2d 139 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1947

It is governed by a National Board, Regional Boards, and Local Boards. It is organized on a union shop basis. … He thereby seeks to draw an analogy to the flag salute eases (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 [ 63 S.Ct. 1178 , 87 L.Ed. 1628 , 147 A.L.R. 674 ], overruling Minersville School Dist. v.

Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc.

56 Cal. 2d 169 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1961

Chavez v. … One such case is O’Malley v.

People v. Town of Sausalito

106 Cal. 500 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1895

The board was not required to enter on their records the number of votes polled. … (Lay v. Parsons, 104 Cal. 661 .)

In Re Hallinan

48 Cal. 2d 52 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1957

In Townsend v. … In Alkow v.

Drennan v. Security Pacific National Bank

28 Cal. 3d 764 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1981

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. … As in Bone v.

People v. Penny

44 Cal. 2d 861 · California Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1955

It is conceded *864 that she had no license from either the Cosmetology Board or the Medical Board of this state; she did have a business license from the city of Los Angeles for the business of “Pace Rejuvenation.” … of Cosmetology or in an establishment other than one licensed by the State Board of Cosmetology is guilty of a misdemeanor.

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.”

Hawkins v. State Bar

23 Cal. 3d 622 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1979

This proceeding arises from facts described in a case previously before us, Johansen v. California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. … show that the board’s recommendation is erroneous or unlawful.

Hart v. Vidal

6 Cal. 56 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

The count is for services rendered as attorney at law in the case of Brown v. Vidal. Upon the trial, "evidence was admitted against the objection of defendant to prove the value of services in the case of New-land v. … A *57 recovery in this case would be no bar to another action for the services rendered in the case of Newland v. Keane. The evidence should therefore have been excluded.

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.

Steele v. County of San Luis Obispo

152 Cal. 785 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1908

It may be conceded, in accord with the decision of this court in Miller v. … The answer to their claim must be the same as was the answer to the claim of plaintiff in Couts v. Cornell, supra.

Kelso v. Teale

106 Cal. 477 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1895

Any demand returned to ... . the board of directors of the Los Angeles Public Library, with the objection of the city auditor, shall again be considered by such board, and, if such demand he again approved as required in … (Falk v. Strother, 84 Cal. 544 .) 2.

Pac. Elec. Ry. v. Rolkin

164 Cal. 154 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1912

A protest filed later has no effect, and does not require the state board to revise or alter its action in placing such property on the roll as operative property, or to dispose of the protest in any way.

People v. Williams

64 Cal. 498 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1884

(Eldridge v. Cowell, 4 Cal. 80 ; Guy v. Hermance, 5 Cal. 73 .) Nor did the grant of the beach and AA'ater lots, although it vested the property in them in the city (Holliday v. … (The City and County of San Francisco v. Calderwood, 31 Cal. 586 ; Same v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 541 .) The city did not accept the offer made by the Statute of 1871-72, and the improvements were not made.

Blanchard v. Hartwell

131 Cal. 263 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1900

In People v. … Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 466 1 ; State v. Chase, 5 Ohio St. 528 ; Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 283 ; Zottman v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 102 2 ; French v. Teschemacher, 24 Cal. 550 ; Los Angeles Gas Co. v.

People v. Hochwender

20 Cal. 2d 181 · California Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1942

Washburn, supra, and Spurrier v. Neumiller, supra. The defendants rely upon the case of the People v. Sischo, 31 Cal. … (Hardin v. Sin Claire, 115 Cal. 460 [ 47 Pac. 363 ]; Millar v. Millar, 51 Cal. App. 718 [ 197 Pac. 811 ].

Treu v. Kirkwood

42 Cal. 2d 602 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1954

The rule announced in Howard v. Lampton, 87 Cal.App.2d 449 [ 197 P.2d 69 ], and Clark v. State Personnel Board, 56 Cal.App.2d 499 [ 133 P.2d 11 ], now disapproved by the majority opinions in Martin v. … Neither Miss Treu, her attorney, nor the trial court or the District Court of Appeal could have known that Howard v. Lampton, supra, and Clark v. State Personnel Board, supra, were to be disapproved in Martin v.

People v. Roberts

2 Cal. 4th 271 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1992

(People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d 432, 448 .) … Failure to Record Discussion of Notes; “Brown” Error. Defendant asserts that the court committed Brown error (People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], revd. on other grounds sub nom.

Lahman v. Hatch

124 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1899

(People v. Rains, 23 Cal. 127 .) In the form prescribed for an assessment-book by section 3651 of the Political Code, there is no description of improvements. … If, on the other hand, the action of the board was- void for want of jurisdiction, the original assessment remained; and there ■ is no error shown in' that assessment. The appellant cites the case of State v.