Case law

Hammond v. City of San Leandro

135 Cal. 450 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1902

Von Schmidt v. Widber, 105 Cal. 151 , cited by appellant, lays down no rule in conflict with this construction of the statute. 2. … It would be quite possible for the clerk to take down the verbal *454 statements so as to enable the board to act intelligently.

Humphfres v. Western Pac. Ry. Co.

173 Cal. 428 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1916

Killelea v. California Horseshoe Co., 140 Cal. 602 , [ 74 Pac. 157 ], and Pierce v. … Co. v. Banks, 156 Ky. 609 , [ 161 S.

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 ].

Pinkerton v. Woodward

33 Cal. 557 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1867

In Matter v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221 , it is held that that was a question of fact, and the question was directed to he submitted to the jury. … The rule is carried to the same extent in Maker v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221 .

Denman v. Webster

7 Cal. Unrep. 65 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1902

But no such general powers have been conferred upon the board of education. “Boards of supervisors are creatures of the statute, and the authority for any act on their part must be sought in the statute”: Modoc Co. v. … In Merriam 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.

Couture v. Ocean Park Bank

205 Cal. 338 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1928

Bank v. … There is nothing contrary to our views above expressed to be found in Brown v. Cow Creek Sheep Co., 21 Wyo. 1 [ 126 Pac. 886 ]. In that ease the check involved directed the bank to “Pay to the order of Ed.

Olsen v. Rogers

120 Cal. 225 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1898

For the same reason the court properly received in evidence the conveyance by Brown and Cobb of the four lots lying between lot three hundred and eighteen and Virginia avenue. … (See Pettigrew v. Dobbelaar, 63 Cal. 396 .) *228 The block books from the assessor’s office were irrelevant to any issue in the case.

Ames v. State Bar

8 Cal. 3d 910 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1973

This is a proceeding to review a recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar (Board) that petitioners be privately reproved. … Additionally, petitioners assert that rule 4 is overinclusive and violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see Keenan v. Board of Law Examiners of State of N.C.

Knoll v. City of Los Angeles

21 Cal. 2d 396 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1942

The issues presented here are similar to those determined in McKeag v. Board of Pension Commrs., ante, p. 386 [ 132 P.2d 198 ] (this day decided) and Haas v. … (See McKeag v. Board of Pension Commrs., ante, p. 386 [ 132 P.2d 198 ].) There is no dispute as to the facts of petitioner’s employment in this case.

People v. Bunn

27 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Jan 10, 2002

BROWN, J. I concur in the judgment under compulsion of People v. Frazer (1999) 21 Cal.4th 737 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 312 , 982 P.2d 180 ] (see id. at pp. 782-784 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.)) and Plaut v.

Puritan Leasing Co. v. August

16 Cal. 3d 451 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1976

Brown and Patricia L. Brown. The appeal is taken by way of a settled statement pursuant to rules 7 and 127 of California Rules of Court. … (E.g., Lawrence Barker, Inc. v. Briggs (1952) 39 Cal.2d 654, 664-665 [ 248 P.2d 897 ]; Yates v. Reid (1950) 36 Cal.2d 383 [ 224 P.2d 8 ]; Narcisi v. Reed (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 586 [ 237 P.2d 558 ]; Burke v.

Davis v. Grunig

143 Cal. 336 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1904

Seale, 52 Cal. 72 ; Coglan v. Beard, 67 Cal. 303 ; Russell v. McDowell, 83 Cal. 70 ; Tebbe v. … People v.

Siebe v. Joshua Hendy Machine Works

86 Cal. 390 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1890

So far, therefore, as the buying of machinery was concerned, the president (in the absence of any interposition by the board) had the same authority as the board had. The matter was left to him. … (See Castle v. Foundry Co., 72 Me. 170, 171 ; Tappan v. Bailey, 4 Met. 536 , 537.) It is probable that this rule would not apply to an agent for a particular transaction, or even to certain kinds of general agents.

Lake County v. Sulphur Bank Quicksilver Mining Co.

66 Cal. 17 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1884

(Cooley on Tax., 259-60; Moss v. Shear, 25 Cal. 46 ; People v. Mahoney, 55 Cal. 288 .) The *21 statute seems to require all property to be assessed to the owner. (Pol. C. 3650.) … (Smith v. Davis, 30 Cal. 537 ; Blatner v. Da vis, 32 Cal. 328 ; Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal. 609; People v. Whipple, 47 Cal. 591 ; Grawford v. Schmidt, 47 Cal. 618 .) “ Sulphur Banks Q. S. M. Co., P.

Sweeny v. Adams

141 Cal. 558 · California Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1904

The board of supervisors, sitting as a canvassing board, declared the appellant elected to such office, and a certificate of election was duly issued to him. … This doctrine finds expression in the ease of Minor v. Kidder, 43 Cal. 236 , where this court says: “It is the wholesome purpose of the *562 statute to invite inquiry into the conduct of the popular elections.

Mansfield v. District Agricultural Ass'n Number Six

154 Cal. 145 · California Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1908

Bowen, as attorney for the board, had ren *147 dered valuable services during the last two years in protecting the rights of the board; had advised the board upon many important legal matters; that he had received no compensation … Riker, 10 Mich. 279 ; Speigle v. Meredith, 4 Biss. 120 , Fed. Cas. 13,227; Stokes v. Stokes, 66 Miss. 456 , [ 6 South. 155 ]; Thurmond v. Faith, 69 Ga. 833 ; Hughes v. Washington, 72 Ill. 84 ; People ex rel. Davis v.

City of Sonora v. Curtin

137 Cal. 583 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1902

In State v. Bean, 91 N. … In San Francisco v. Liverpool etc. Ins.

North Bay Regional Center v. Maldonado

50 Cal. 4th 1206 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 2010

Board of Medical Examiners [(1974)] 11 Cal.3d 1, 27 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ]).) … San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th 961 , Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th 505 , Hammond 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.