Case law

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.

People v. Daniels

52 Cal. 3d 815 · California Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1991

(See CALJIC No. 8.88; People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 545, fn. 19 .) … (People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d 432, 448 .)

Crooks v. State Bar

3 Cal. 3d 346 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1970

(b)-(c)) and the burden is on petitioner to show that the board’s findings are not supported by the evidence (Mitton v. State Bar, 71 Cal.2d 525, 526 [1] [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 649 , 455 P.2d 753 ]). … (Petersen v. State Bar, 21 Cal.2d 866, 871 [4] [ 136 P.2d 561 ]; Shaeffer v. State Bar, 220 Cal. 681, 687-688 [3] [ 32 P.2d 140 ].)

Victor Valley Housing Corp. v. County of San Bernardino

45 Cal. 2d 580 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1955

The order of the court was similar to the order of the trial court in De Luz Homes v. … The judgments and orders are reversed with directions to the trial court to remand the proceedings to the county board of equalization for action in accord with the opinions expressed above and in De Luz Homes v.

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 .

Rosborough v. Shasta River Canal Co.

22 Cal. 556 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

On the eighth day of November, 1859, the Board of Trustees of the company made the following order: “ Ordered, that the compensation of the President of the Board of Trustees be established at fifty dollars per month.” … (Fraylor v. Sonora Mining *562 Co., 17 Cal. 594 .)

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.

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.

Williams v. City of Stockton

195 Cal. 743 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1925

They rely on the eases of Los Angeles Gas Co. v. Toberman, 61 Cal. 201 ; Frick v. Los Angeles, 115 Cal. 512 [ 47 Pac. 250 ], and Times Publishing Co. v. Weatherby, 139 Cal. 618 [ 73 Pac. 465 ]. … But the board may not let the contracts piecemeal.

Lubliner v. Alpers

145 Cal. 291 · California Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1904

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.

Henshaw v. Foster

176 Cal. 507 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1917

Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U. S. 514, 528 , [ 25 L. Ed. 699 ] ; Adams v. Minneapolis, 20 Minn. 484 ; People v. Supervisors, 94 N. Y. 263 ; Stroud v. Stevens Point, 37 Wis. 367 ; Schriber v. … In the ease of Pixley v.

County of Los Angeles v. Cline

185 Cal. 299 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1921

It is held in San Francisco v. Mulcrevy, 15 Cal. App. 11 , [ 113 Pac. 339 ], and County of Alameda v. Cook, 32 Cal. … In Board of Freeholders v. Kaiser, 75 N. J. L. 9, [ 69 Atl. 25 ], the New Jersey court was dealing with the precise question presented here, under a statute substantially like our own.

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.

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 ].

Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court

45 Cal. 3d 491 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1988

v. … (Hughes v. City of Lincoln (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 741, 745 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 306 ]; see also, Merriman v. Board of Supervisors (1983) 138 Cal.App.3d 889, 892 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 343 ]; Friends of Mount Diablo 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.

Selznick v. State Bar

16 Cal. 3d 704 · California Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1976

State Bar, supra, 6 Cal.3d 551, 559 ; Corn v. State Bar (1968) 68 Cal.2d 461, 466-467 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 429 P.2d 313 ]). … November 1974 disciplinary board minutes, at pages 14-16.

Bushman v. State Bar

11 Cal. 3d 558 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1974

State Bar (1931) 214 Cal. 490 [ 6 P.2d 513 , 80 A.L.R. 701 ]) to disbarment (Dalzell v. State Bar (1936) 6 Cal.2d 433 [ 57 P.2d 1300 ]; Petersen v. State Bar (1943) 21 Cal.2d 866 [ 136 P.2d 561 ]). … Suspension of three months (Fish v. State Bar (1931) 214 Cal. 215 [ 4 P.2d 937 ]) to three years (Johnson v. State Bar (1935) 4 Cal.2d 744 [ 52 P.2d 928 ]) has been imposed for violations of rule 2.

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.