Case law

Stephens v. Clark

16 Cal. 2d 490 · California Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1940

The classification of the position by fixing a salary range was the original determination of the personnel board, and petitioner has no right to a salary in excess of the maximum therein provided. … This does not result in a reduction of salary under the Civil Service Act, supra; it merely means that the board set up a standard, where none existed before, which must be followed. (See Raymond v. Christian, 24 Cal.

San Francisco Etc. R.R. Co. v. Stockton

149 Cal. 83 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1906

Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12 ; San Francisco v. Central Pacific R.R. Co., 127 U.S. 1 , [ 8 Sup. … Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12 .)

Ginochio v. City & County of San Francisco

194 Cal. 159 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1924

Clarke v. Cordis, 4 Allen (Mass.), 466, 480. ‘The heirs of a person,’ said this court in Hochstein v. … Bode, 84 Cal. 489 [ 24 Pac. 269 ] ; Slaughter v. Goldberg, Bowen & Co., 26 Cal. App. 318 [ 147 Pac. 90 ] ; Kippen v. Ollasson, 136 Cal. 640 [ 69 Pac. 293 ]; Bailey v.

Stephens v. Richardson

184 Cal. 721 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1921

of such funds, is not a sale of such bonds within the meaning of the constitutional amendment of 1920, which requires the destruction of unsold bonds. ( Christensen v. … The thirty-seven million dollars includes all of the twelve thousand bonds not heretofore transferred and delivered to the state board of control.

Hurst v. City of Burlingame

207 Cal. 134 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1929

(Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 [38 A. L. R. 1479, 234 Pac. 381 ] ; Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 [54 A. L. R. 1016, 71 L. Ed. 303 , 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114].) … (Newsom v. Board of Supervisors, 205 Cal. 262 [ 270 Pac. 676 ]; Galvin v. Board of Supervisors, 195 Cal. 686 [ 235 Pac. 450 ], See, also, Hopping v. Council of City of Richmond, 170 Cal. 605 [ 150 Pac. 977 ]; Hyde v.

People ex rel. English v. Roberts

92 Cal. 659 · California Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1892

The vessels paid the regular rates of dockage to said board. … (Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577 ; Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 84 ; Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 423 ; Vicksburg v. Tobin, 100 U. S. 430 .)

In Re Bye

12 Cal. 3d 96 · California Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1974

(Id., Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 570-571 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 556-557 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) Then, “[o]nce it is determined that due process applies, the question remains what process is due.” (Morrissey v. … McDonnell 0974) 418 U.S. 539, 560 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 953 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 ]; Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, 408 U.S. 564, 570-571 ; Boddie v.

Bassett v. Fairchild

132 Cal. 637 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1901

“In Sawyer v. … Co., 37 Miss. 202 ; Santa Clara Mining Ass’n v. Meredith, 49 Md. 389 ; 1 Cheeney v. Lafayette etc. Ry. Co., 68 Ill. 570 ; 2 First Nat. Bank v. Drake, 29 Kan. 311 ; 3 Severson v. Bi-Metallic etc.

Cane v. State Bar of California

14 Cal. 2d 597 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1939

F. 16189 to review the recommendations of the board of governors. … (Mauer v. State Bar, 219 Cal. 271 [ 26 Pac. (2d) 14 ]; Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal. (2d) 75 [ 39 Pac. (2d) 403 ]; Wilcox v. State Bar, 2 Cal. (2d) 614 [ 42 Pac. (2d) 631 ] ; Mills v.

Patrick v. Riley

209 Cal. 350 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1930

(Lausen v. Board of Supervisors, 204 Iowa, 30, 33 [ 214 N. W. 682, 684 ].) … Board of Commrs., 108 Kan. 184 [ 194 Pac. 913 ]; Peverill v. Board of Supervisors, 201 Iowa, 1050, 1057 [ 205 N. W. 543, 546 ]; Kroplin v. Truax, supra, and State v. Splittgerber, (Neb.) 229 N. W. 332 .

Petersen v. State Bar

21 Cal. 2d 866 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1943

(Jacobs v. State Bar, 219 Cal. 59 [ 25 P.2d 401 ].) … A somewhat similar contention was rejected in Shaeffer v. State Bar, 220 Cal. 681 [ 32 P.2d 140 ].

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 .)

Lamberson v. Jefferds

116 Cal. 492 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1897

It has been held that the auditor is not protected by an order of the board of supervisors allowing a claim which cannot be a charge against the county. (Linden v. Case, 46 Cal. 171 ; Connor v. … Morris, 23 Cal. 447 ; Carroll v. Siebenthaler, 37 Cal. 193.) If he refuses to issue a warrant for an illegal claim he is acting for the county, and is protecting it against the unlawful acts of the board of supervisors.

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.)

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.

Preston v. State Bar

28 Cal. 2d 643 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1946

(Brydonjack v. State Bar, 208 Cal. 439, 446 [ 281 P. 1018 , 66 A.L.R. 1507 ]; Vaughan v. State Bar, 208 Cal. 740 [ 284 P. 909 ].) … (Fish v. State Bar, 214 Cal. 215, 225 [ 4 P.2d 937 ]; Brydonjack v. State Bar, supra.)” (In re Lacey, 11 Cal.2d 699, 701 [ 81 P.2d 935 ].)

Boyne v. Ryan

100 Cal. 265 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1893

by said board without authority of law. … As was said by Chancellor Kent, Trustees etc. v.

Taylor v. Cole

201 Cal. 327 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1927

(Quint v. Hoffman, 103 Cal. 506 ( 37 Pac. 514, 777 ]; Reclamation Dist. v. Turner, 104 Cal. 334 [ 37 Pac. 1038 ]; Hamilton v. County of San Diego, 108 Cal. 273 [ 41 Pac. 305 ] ; Keech v. … (Dean v. Davis, 51 Cal. 411 ; Reclamation District v. Gray, 95 Cal. 601 [ 30 Pac. 779 ]; Swamp Land District No. 150 v. Silver, 98 Cal. 53 [ 52 Pac. 866 ].)” In Keech v.

Kennedy v. the State Bar

13 Cal. 2d 236 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1939

(Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal. (2d) 75 [ 39 Pac. (2d) 403 ]; McCue v. State Bar, 4 Cal. (2d) 79 [ 47 Pac. (2d) 268 ].) … In view of the foregoing we conclude that the petitioner has not shown that the decision and recommendation of the board is erroneous or unlawful.

Kleiber v. City & County of San Francisco

18 Cal. 2d 718 · California Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1941

The plaintiff relies on Hopping v. … In People v.