Case law

Camron v. Kenfield

57 Cal. 550 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board, or person.” … It might as well be urged that what was said in Maurer v.

Wickersham v. Crittenden

110 Cal. 332 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1895

The facts out of which the cause of action is claimed to arise are stated in the opinion given in Wickersham v. … It is not necessary to consider the attempted ratification by the board of directors, which in the former case ( Wickersham v.

McCracken v. Teets

41 Cal. 2d 648 · California Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1953

Brown, Attorney General, and Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent. SCHAUER, J. Petitioner is confined under a judgment which imposes the death sentence for first degree murder. … (Strudthoff v. Yates (1946), 28 Cal.2d 602, 615-616 [ 170 P.2d 873 ]; Southern Cal. Jockey Club v. California etc. Racing Board (1950), 36 Cal.2d 167, 174 [ 223 P.2d 1 ].)

Vaughn v. State Bar

9 Cal. 3d 698 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1973

Inniss v. … (Mrakich v. State Bar (1973) 8 Cal.3d 896, 906 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 506 P.2d 633 ]; Reznik v. State Bar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 198, 204 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 769 , 460 P.2d 969 , 40 A.L.R.3d 161 ]; Arden v.

In Re Weber

16 Cal. 3d 578 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1976

There was a lack of contrition in petitioner’s attitude toward the disciplinary proceeding. 5 Petitioner has the burden of showing that the board’s recommendation was erroneous or unlawful. {Yokozeki v. … (People v. Utter (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 535 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 214 ]; People v.

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.

Bowles v. Superior Court

44 Cal. 2d 574 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 1955

(Stick v. Goldner (1869), 38 Cal. 608, 610 ; Dollenmayer v. Pryor, 150 Cal. 1, 3 [ 87 P. 816 ]; Braun v. Brown, 13 Cal.2d 130, 133 [ 87 P.2d 1009 ]; see People v. Pfeiffer, 59 Cal. 89 .) … (Jellen v. O'Brien, 89 Cal.App. 505, 509 [ 264 P. 1115 ]; see Carey v. Brown, 58 Cal. 180, 183 ; Weaver v. Pasadena Tournament of Roses Assn., 32 Cal.2d 833, 837 [ 198 P.2d 514 ]; Parker v.

Black v. State Bar

57 Cal. 2d 219 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1962

(Bruns v. State Bar, 18 Cal.2d 667, 672 [ 117 P.2d 327 ].) … (Rock v.

Roberts v. Wehmeyer

191 Cal. 601 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1923

Aside from the proposition that the community property may be divided only upon a dissolution of the marriage and that an interlocutory decree is not such a dissolution (Brown v. … Brown, 170 Cal. 1 [ 147 Pac. 1168 ]; Pereira v. Pereira, 156 Cal. 1 [ 134 Am. St. Rep. 107 , 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 880, 103 Pac. 488 ]; Remley v. Remley, 49 Cal.

Franscioni v. Soledad Land & Water Co.

170 Cal. 221 · California Supreme Court · May 20, 1915

(Farmer v. Ukiah Water Co., 56 Cal. 11 ; Smith v. Corbit, 116 Cal. 591 , [ 48 Pac. 725 ].) … (Hildreth v. Montecito etc. Co., 139 Cal. 29 , [ 72 Pac. 395 ] ; Arroyo Ditch etc. Co. v. Bequette, 149 Cal. 546 , [9 Ann. Cas. 1141, 87 Pac. 10 ] ; Walnut Irr. Dist. v.

Top Hat Liquors, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

13 Cal. 3d 107 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1974

(See Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 280, 291-293 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ].) … (Samson Market Co. v. Kirby (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 577, 581 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 130 ].)

County of Los Angeles v. Graves

210 Cal. 21 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1930

Ry. v. Benson, 253 Fed. 710, 711 [ 165 C. C. … In this connection, we call attention to the decision in City of Sacramento v.

Gowanlock v. Turner

42 Cal. 2d 296 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1954

The respondents rely upon Chatfield v. City of Seattle, 198 Wash. 179 [ 88 P.2d 582 , 121 A.L.R 1279]; Goss v. Justice of District Court of Holyoke, 302 Mass. 148 [ 18 N.E.2d 546 ] ; and Graham v. … Subsequently, in Adams v.

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.

Magee v. State Bar

58 Cal. 2d 423 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1962

Code, § 6106; Lantz v. … The board showed Mrs.

Callahan v. Dunn

78 Cal. 366 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1889

(See Fox v. W. P. R. R. Co., 31 Cal. 538 .) … (Davis v. San Lorenzo R. R. Co., 47 Cal. 523 ; San Mateo Water Works v. Sharpstein, 50 Cal. 284 ; Sanborn v. Belden, 51 Cal. 266 ; Vilhac v. S. & I. R. R. Co., 53 Cal. 208 .)

Slavich v. Hamilton

201 Cal. 299 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1927

(Archer v. Salinas City, 93 Cal. 43, 51 [16 L. R. A. 145, 28 Pac. 839 ]; Mulvey v. Wangenheim, 23 Cal. … (Harter v. San Jose, 141 Cal. 659 [ 75 Pac. 344 ]; Spires v. City of Los Angeles, supra.)

Christenson v. Cudahy Packing Co.

198 Cal. 685 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1926

Proc., sec. 1285; Sidlinger v. Kerkow, 82 Cal. 42 [ 23 Pac. 932 ]). In holding the award invalid we do not necessarily find that the board of arbitrators had no jurisdiction to render an award. … Sacramento, 64 Cal. 102, 104 [ 28 Pac. 108 ]; Meloy v. Imperial Land Co., supra).

Marasco v. Wadsworth

21 Cal. 3d 82 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1978

More than one year after the accident, on August 28, 1973, following our decision holding unconstitutional Vehicle Code section 17158, the guest statute (Brown v. … Here plaintiff named Wadsworth, driver of the vehicle in which plaintiff’s decedent was killed, as a defendant five months after our decision in Brown v.

McRose v. Bottyer

81 Cal. 122 · California Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1889

(Babcock v. Welsh, 71 Cal. 402 .) … (Bolger v. Foss, 65 Cal. 250 ; Gloster v. Wade, 78 Cal. 407 .)