Case law

Justesen's Food Stores, Inc. v. City of Tulare

12 Cal. 2d 324 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1938

(a Corporation), Appellant, v. CITY OF TULARE (a Municipal Corporation) et al., Respondents. L. A. No. 16060. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. November 14, 1938. Hugo McKinley and Joseph A. Brown for Appellant. … In Olds v.

Ex parte Stephen

114 Cal. 278 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1896

(Freeman on Judgments, secs. 126, 619; Lewis v. Dutton, 8 How. … Such discrimination the board have a right to make. (Amador County v. Kennedy, 70 Cal. 458 ; Ex parte Haskell, 112 Cal. 412 .) Nor can the ordinance be said to be unreasonable or oppressive.

Wood, Curtis & Co. v. El Dorado Lumber Co.

153 Cal. 230 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1908

So far, and no further, Macomber v. Bigelow went. … The case of Clark v. Brown, 141 Cal. 93 , [ 74 Pac. 548 ], relied upon by appellant, has not been overlooked. Clark v.

City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

11 Cal. 2d 395 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1938

Dist. *402 v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112 [17 Sup. Ct. 56, 41 L. Ed. 369 ]; Miller & Lux v. Board of Supervisors, 189 Cal. 254 [ 208 Pac. 304 ].) … (Board of Directors of Crawford County Levee Dist. v. Dunbar, 107 Ark. 285 [ 155 S. W. 96 ].)

People v. Davidson

79 Cal. 166 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1889

(Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 16 Pick. 175 ; 26 Am. Dec. 654 .) … (Craig v. People, 47 Ill. 487 .) This language is as applicable to toll-roads as plank roads, and we think it is a correct statement of the law.

Scott v. Superior Sunset Oil Co.

144 Cal. 140 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1904

The separate assent of a majority of the board was all that ought to be required under the circumstances"presented by the evidence. (Crowley v. Genesee Min. Co., 55 Cal. 273 ; Streeten v. … Such evidence was clearly proper when coupled with evidence of the express assent to the employment by a majority of the board. The question considered in Deane v. Gray etc.

People v. Eddie M.

3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 2003

Brown [(1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 452 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 391 ] (Brown)] and any other relevant provision of law.” (§ 777(c).) 7 n. … (Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 489 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ] (Morrissey); Brown, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d 452, 454-455 ; see, e.g., People v.

Drew v. Superior Court of Mendocino County

180 Cal. 711 · California Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1919

When a copy of the writ which has been ordered is served upon the clerk of the board, it will be served upon the corporation, and be equivalent to a command that the persons who may be members of the board shall do what is … See, also, Leavenworth v. Kinney, 154 U. S. 642 , [ 25 L. Ed. 336 , 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1198, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes]; People v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 277 , [ 59 Am.

People v. San Francisco Sav. Union

31 Cal. 132 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

.: We are unable to distinguish this case from Hurlburt v. Butenop, 27 Cal. 50 , Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Ill. 341 , Lane v. Bommelmann, 21 Ill. 147, and Eppinger v. … The Board of Supervisors then, in the mode prescribed by law, equalizes the valuations, and the Clerk of the Board enters upon it all the changes and corrections made by the Board; after which the assessment roll, so corrected

Mulcahy v. Baldwin

216 Cal. 517 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1932

Dist. v. Seeley, 198 Cal. 477, 483 [ 245 Pac. 1092 ].) … Dist. v. Halley, 197 Cal. 50, 60, 62 [ 239 Pac. 719 ].)

Bassett v. Fairchild

6 Cal. Unrep. 458 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1900

In Henry v. … Smith v.

Ex parte Christensen

85 Cal. 208 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1890

v. … (See Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 .) And if the governing power can prohibit a thing altogether, it can impose such conditions upon its existence as it pleases.

In Re Quinn

25 Cal. 2d 799 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1945

Certainly an indeterminate sentence without a fixed maximum is regarded for certain purposes as having the effect of a life senténce until and unless the prison term board has acted and fixed a term for years (People v. … Ralph, (1944), 24 Cal.2d 575, 578 [ 150 P.2d 401 ]; People v. Jones (1936), 6 Cal.2d 554, 556 [59 *801 P.2d 89]; People v.

Slavich v. Hamilton

201 Cal. 299 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1927

(Archer v. Salinas City, 93 Cal. 43, 51 [16 L. R. A. 145, 28 Pac. 839 ]; Mulvey v. Wangenheim, 23 Cal. … (Harter v. San Jose, 141 Cal. 659 [ 75 Pac. 344 ]; Spires v. City of Los Angeles, supra.)

People ex rel. Wood v. Sands

102 Cal. 12 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1894

The charter did not create the office of justice of the peace, and under the authority of Ex parte Ah You, 82 Cal. 339 , and People v. … Section 35 of the same act expressly recognizes that fact, and, under the head of general permanent powers of the board of supervisors, declares that the board has power “to do and perform all other acts and things required

People v. Hamilton

46 Cal. 3d 123 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1988

In People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], reversed on other grounds sub nomine California v. … (People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 538-544.)

Berkeley High School District v. Coit

7 Cal. 2d 132 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1936

the request and the board of supervisors, by a 4/5th vote, ordered the notes to issue. … (Nickerson v. San Bernardino County, 179 Cal. 518 [ 177 Pac. 465 ].)

Kamper v. Waldon

17 Cal. 2d 718 · California Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1941

(See Perkins v. Westcoat, 3 Colo. App. 338 [ 33 Pac. 139 ]; Texas Employers’ Ins. Assn. v. Birdwell, (Tex. Civ. App.) 39 S. W. (2d) 159 ; Going v. Going, 8 Tenn. App. 690 .) … (Brown v. Brown, 83 Cal. App. 74 [ 256 Pac. 595 ].)

County of Los Angeles v. State of California

43 Cal. 3d 46 · California Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1987

Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 596 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 487 P.2d 1241 , 41 A.L.R.3d 1187 ]; Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].)” (Legislature v. … V It follows from our conclusions above, that in each of these cases the plaintiffs’ reimbursement claims were properly denied by the State Board of Control.

Communist Party of United States of America v. Peek

20 Cal. 2d 536 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1942

(Spier v. Baker, supra, p. 375 ; Britton v. Board of Commrs., supra, p. 341.) … (Britton v. Board of Commrs., supra; Eaton v. Brown, 96 Cal. 371, 373 [ 31 Pac. 250 , 31 Am. St. Rep. 225 ,17 L. R. A. 697].)