Case law

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.

Adler v. City of Pasadena

57 Cal. 2d 609 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1962

Thus, in Tyro, v. Board of Police etc. … In Farrell v.

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.

Carmel Valley Fire Protection District v. State

25 Cal. 4th 287 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2001

Appeals Bd. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 329, 339-341 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 636 P.2d 1139 ] [judicial power to discipline attorneys could not be vested in Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board]; see also People v. … In support of the above quoted dictum, the Court of Appeal in California Radioactive Materials mistakenly relied upon our decision in State Board of Education v.

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 ].

Bories v. Union Building & Loan Ass'n

141 Cal. 74 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1903

In Lanz v. Fresno etc. … In People v.

Union Oil Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

211 Cal. 398 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1931

In Mailman v. … (See Associated Oil Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 191 Cal. 557 [ 217 Pac. 744 ].) In the instant case, however, *404 there was a definite compulsion upon the deceased to come on board that night.

Sechrist v. Rialto Irrigation District

129 Cal. 640 · California Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1900

Such a case is Chase v. City Treasurer, etc., 122 Cal. 540 . (See, also, Devine v. Board of Supervisors, 121 Cal. 670 .) 4. … It was said in Hughson v.

Nesbitt v. Bolz

13 Cal. 2d 677 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1939

In Board of Commrs., etc., v. Wachovia Loan & Trust Co., 143 N. C. 110 [ 55 S. … We are unable to find any judicial decision which places the same construction upon the words ‘ entire board’ when the word ‘elected’ does not follow.” (See, also, People v.

Bank of Yolo v. Weaver

3 Cal. Unrep. 569 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1892

Such a corporation cannot receive the benefits and uses of an executed contract, and then deny its obligation: Main v. Casserly, 67 Cal. 129 , 7 Pac. 426 ; Bradley v. Ballard, 55 Ill. 413 ; Pixley v. … Dec. 623 ; Foulke v. Railroad Co., 51 Cal. 365 .

Hennessy v. State Bar

18 Cal. 2d 685 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1941

The Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommendation of the local administrative committee. … Both the committee and the Board of Governors properly took into consideration the past record and conduct of the petitioner. (Kennedy v. State Bar, 13 Cal. (2d) 236 [ 88 Pac. (2d) 920 ]; Petersen v.

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.

People v. Rogers

71 Cal. 565 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1887

(State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 319 ; People v. McOliver, 67 Cal. 56 .) … (State v. Watkins, 9 Conn. 54 .)

Lewis v. Colgan

5 Cal. Unrep. 373 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1896

Like considerations apply to similar acts by boards of supervisors, county commissioners and auditors: Colusa Co. v. De Jarnett, 55 Cal. 373 . … As was said in Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 350 : “It may appropriate [the public moneys] to claims which have no legal obligation, and are founded only in justice.

San Joaquin Land & Water Co. v. Beecher

101 Cal. 70 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1894

By-laws were thereupon adopted, a board of nine permanent directors elected, to which board power to purchase water rights was unanimously granted. On the same day the new board of directors organized by selecting L. U. … Co. v. Mason, 16 N. Y. 452 ; Red Wing Hotel Co. v. Fredericks, 26 Minn. 112 .)

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.

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.

Great Western Power Co. v. City of Oakland

196 Cal. 131 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1925

W. v. McFadden, 213 Mo. 269, 287 [ 111 S. W. 1172 ]; Grant v. Griffith, 40 App. Div. 18 [ 56 N. Y. Supp. 791 ]; Lorch v. Page, 97 Conn. 66 [24 A. L. R. 1204, 1209, 115 Atl. 681 ]; 19 Cor. … The cases cited by respondent (Bessolo v. City of Los Angeles, 176 Cal. 597 [ 169 Pac. 372 ]; Henne v. Los Angeles County, 129 Gal. 297 [ 61 Pac. 1081 ]; Weyse v.

Doland v. Clark

143 Cal. 176 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1904

It was said by this court in Weaver v. … McBean v. City of Fresno was followed and approved in Smilie v.