Case law

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 .

Kramm v. Bogue

127 Cal. 122 · California Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1899

of education or board of school trustees of such city or incorporated town; provided, that whenever a city or town shall be incorporated the board of supervisors of the county may annex thereto, for school purposes only, … The case of Bay View School Dist. v. Linscott, 99 Cal. 25, cited by respondent, has no application here. It involved no question as to the power of the board of supervisors to annex territory for school purposes.

Talley v. Northern San Diego County Hospital District

41 Cal. 2d 33 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1953

The principal difference between the two appears to be that county hospitals are administered by county boards of supervisors while hospitals operated by local hospital districts are administered by a board of directors. … In Nissen v. Cordua Irr.

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.

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.

In Re Tobacco Cases II

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 418 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2007

Reynolds), Lorillard Tobacco Company (Lorillard), and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (Brown & Williamson). … (Kasky v. Nike, Inc., supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 952, citing Board of Trustees, State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox (1989) 492 U.S. 469, 480 [ 106 L.Ed.2d 388 , 109 S.Ct. 3028 ].)

County of El Dorado v. Meiss

100 Cal. 268 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1893

(People v. Martin, 60 Cal. 153 .) … (Lassen Co. v. Cone, 72 Cal. 387 .)

In Re Estate of Sutro

152 Cal. 249 · California Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1907

(Home and L.A. v. Wilkins, 71 Cal. 626 , [ 12 P. 799 ]; McCormick v. Belvin, 96 Cal. 182 , [ 31 P. 16 ]; People v. Center, 61 Cal. 191 ; Corcoran v. Desmond, 71 Cal. 103 , [ 11 P. 815 ]; Centerville v. … (Leach v.

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.

Dearborn v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Order of United Workmen

138 Cal. 658 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1903

(See, Auzerais v. Naglee, 74 Cal. 69 , and cases there cited.) … Plaintiff’s claim was referred to said board of arbitration, and its report thereon was signed by the members of that board, and no appeal having been taken therefrom, its action was final and conclusive.

Sawyer v. State Bar of Cal.

220 Cal. 702 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1934

We feel that in the light of the decided attitude taken by The State Bar and approved by this court as expressed in the recent cases of Townsend v. State Bar, 210 Cal. 362 [ 291 Pac. 837 ]; Shaw v. … State Bar, 212 Cal. 52 [ 297 Pac. 532 ]; Smallberg v. State Bar, 212 Cal. 113 [ 297 Pac. 916 ]; Howe v. State Bar, 212 Cal. 222 [ 298 Pac. 25 ]; Dahl v. State Bar, 213 Cal. 160 [ 1 Pac. (2d) 977 ]; Recht v.

Aguilar v. Lerner

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 874 · California Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2004

The majority describes this court’s order of January 14, 2004, setting the case of Aguilar v. … Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., concurred. The petition of Allen J. Kent for a rehearing was denied November 10, 2004. Kennard, J., Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Contractor's Safety Ass'n v. California Compensation Insurance

48 Cal. 2d 71 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1957

(Chavez v. Times Mirror, 185 Cal. 20, 23 [ 195 P. 666 ]; French v. Senate of State of California, 146 Cal. 604, 607 [ 80 P. 1031 , 2 Ann.Cas. 756, 69 L.R.A. 556 ]; Mendez v. Pacific Gas & Elec. … Co., 115 Cal.App.2d 192, 195 [ 251 P.2d 773 ]; Clark v. City of Pasadena, 102 Cal.App.2d 198, 200 [ 227 P.2d 306 ] ; Livermore v. Beal, 18 Cal.App.2d 535, 539 [ 64 P.2d 987 ] ; Fey v. Rossi Imp.

Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Assn. v. County of Sacramento

47 Cal. 4th 902 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 2009

Real parties in interest filed an administrative appeal with the County Board of Supervisors (the Board). The Board upheld the appeal and denied renewal of tire CUP. … (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564, fn. 3 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 410 , 801 P.2d 1161 ].)” (Muzzy Ranch Co. v.

Bank of National City v. Johnston

6 Cal. Unrep. 418 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1900

In Whitehead v. Rubber Co., 52 N. J. … In Minneapolis Times Co. v. Nimocks, 53 Minn. 381 , 55 N.

Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center

27 Cal. 3d 614 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1980

Morrison v. State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal.3d 214, 230-233 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 461 P.2d 375 ].) … Byrd v. Savage (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 396, 402-403 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 881 ]; Strode v. Board of Medical Examiners (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 291, 303-304 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 879 ]; Steele v. L.A.

Prime v. State Bar

18 Cal. 2d 56 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1941

The rule with respect to the consideration of other acts of misconduct of an attorney in fixing the penalty to be imposed was considered by this court in the recent ease of Kennedy v. … (Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal. (2d) 75 [ 39 Pac. (2d) 403 ].)

People v. North Pacific Coast Railroad

68 Cal. 551 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1886

The assessment is to be made by the state board of * equalization in the month of August, and within ten days after the third Monday of that month the board is to apportion the total assessments to the counties or cities … (Harper v. Rowe, 53 Cal. 236 ; Lake County v. Sulphur Bank Q. M. Co., 66 Gal. 17.)

DeVita v. County of Napa

9 Cal. 4th 763 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1995

Board of Supervisors, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th 141, 153 ; see also American Federation of Labor v. … (See Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d 90, 103-104 .)

Shannon v. City of Los Angeles

205 Cal. 366 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1928

(Chaplin v. Superior Court, 81 Cal. App. 367 [ 253 Pac. 954 ].) … Service by mail of the notice or statement in question is not provided for in said section (see Blalock v. Ridgway, 92 Cal.