Case law

Fall v. Paine

23 Cal. 302 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

(Waugh v. Chauncey, 13 Cal. 11 ; Thomas v. Armstrong, 7 Id. 287.) … The judgments and orders of the board, in proper cases, where their action is not final and conclusive, can be reviewed by certiorari. (People v. El Dorado Co., 8 Cal. 58 ; People v. Marin Co., 10 Id. 344.)

People v. Walker

47 Cal. 3d 605 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1988

(Compare People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 536-537, vacated sub nom. California v. … (People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 544, fn. 17 .)

Ex parte Chin Yan

60 Cal. 78 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1882

The Traylor Act, declared unconstitutional in Earle v. The Board of Education ( 55 Cal. 489 ), was an act of the Legislature. Desmond v. Dunn, 55 Cal. 242 , and McDonald v. … (See Peoria v. Calhoun, 29 Ill. 317 ; St. Paul v. Colter, 12 Minn. 41 ; Brooklyn v. Breslin, 57 N. Y. 591 ; State v. Clark, 54 Mo. 17,36 .)

Mahoney v. City of San Diego

198 Cal. 388 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1926

Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 162 Cal. 164 -168 [9 A. L. … Co. v.

Hornung v. McCarthy

126 Cal. 17 · California Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1899

Rep. 149 , and other cases cited by respondent; nor is it an action to enjoin the prosecution of work, as was Geurkink v. Petaluma, 112 Cal. 306 ; nor is it like Bigelow v. … (Householder v. Kansas, 83 Mo. 488 .)

Stephens v. County of Tulare

43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 302 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 2006

(Leili v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 985 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 427 ] (Leili); see generally Tapia v. … ” refers to the county board of retirement.

Wong v. State Bar

15 Cal. 3d 528 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1975

This is a proceeding to review a recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar (board) that petitioner be disbarred. … (See Emslie v. State Bar, 11 Cal.3d 210, 224 (10) [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 520 P.2d 991 ]; Zitny v. State Bar, 64 Cal.2d 787, 790-791 (fn. 1) [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 415 P.2d 521 ].) As stated by this court in Best v.

Kauffman v. MacHin Shirt Co.

167 Cal. 506 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1914

(Green v. Southern Pacific Co., 132 Cal. 254 , [ 64 Pac. 255 ] ; Hamlin v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co., 150 Cal. 777 , [ 89 Pac. 1109 ] ; Brown v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co., *511 ante, p. 200, [ 138 Pac. 1005 ].) … (Hamlin v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co., 150 Cal. 777 , [ 89 Pac. 1109 ], and Brown v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co., ante, p. 200, [ 138 Pac. 1005 ].)

Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System

California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 2021

Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057, 1061 (Park)). 7  BONNI v. ST. … (See, e.g., Laker v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 745, 772 & fn. 19; Sheley v. Harrop (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1147, 1168–1170; see also, e.g., Okorie v.

Meyer v. Reclamation District No. 17

172 Cal. 104 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1916

Diepenbrock, 168 Cal. 577 , [ 143 P. 763 ], and Reclamation Dist. v. Hershey, 169 Cal. 793 , [ 148 P. 185 ]. … The remark in Reclamation Dist. v.

Segretti v. State Bar

15 Cal. 3d 878 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1976

(Black v. … (Kastigar v.

People v. Hyde

12 Cal. 3d 158 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1974

. ( United States v. … Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (health quarantine); Kroplin v. Truax, 119 Ohio St. 610 , 165 N.E. 498 (summary destruction of tubercular cattle)." (387 U.S. at p. 539 [18 L.Ed.2d at p. 941].)

Clough v. Duffy

152 Cal. 311 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1907

supervision of the board of public works and in accordance with plans and specifications filed by the board and approved by the board of supervisors, and appropriating seventy-five thousand dollars for the purpose. … (See Hammond v. City of San Leandro, 135 Cal. 450 , [ 67 Pac. 692 ].)

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.

Barber v. Galloway

195 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1924

In the case of People v. … (Tarpey v. McClure, supra; People v. Sacramento Drainage District, supra; Los Angeles Flood Control v. Hamilton, supra.)

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.

Eichelberger v. City of Berkeley

46 Cal. 2d 182 · California Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1956

(Board of Trustees of Policemen’s Pension Fund v. Schupp, 223 Ky. 269 [ 3 S.W.2d 606 ] ; People v. Board of Trustees of Firemen’s Pension Fund, 103 Colo. 1 [ 82 P.2d 765 ]; McNichols v. … Walton, 120 Colo. 269 [ 208 P.2d 1156 ]; see Ridgley v. Board of Trustees, 371 Ill. 409 [ 21 N.E.2d 286 ]; Raines v. Board of Trustees, 365 Ill. 610 *189 [ 7 N.E.2d 489 ]; McCord v. Iowa Emp.

Vaughan v. State Bar

208 Cal. 740 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1930

Petitioner then filed a petition for reinstatement with the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California. After due notice to the applicant a hearing was had before the board of bar examiners. … App. 551 [ 179 Pac. 898 ]; Brydonjack v. State Bar, ante, p. 439 [ 281 Pac. 1018 ].)