Case law

Crippen v. Farrier

166 Cal. 69 · California Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1913

The ordinance, which went into effect on the eighth day of July, 1912, provided that the tax-collector of *70 the county should issue, upon orders made by the board of supervisors, to such person as the board should, designate … In re Ellsworth, 165 Cal. 677 , [ 133 Pac. 272 ], and Giddings v.

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.)

City and County of San Francisco v. County of San Mateo

10 Cal. 4th 554 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1995

(See Board of Supervisors v. … (Board of Supervisors 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.

Knudson v. Kearney

171 Cal. 250 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1915

Reference is made in the opinion in People v. … (Eldridge v. Cowell, 4 Cal. 87 ; Hyman v. Read, 13 Cal. 444 ; Knight v. Roche, 56 Cal. 15 ; People v. Williams, 64 Cal. 498 , [ 2 Pac. 393 ]; San Francisco v. Straut, 84 Cal. 124 , [ 24 Pac. 814 ].)

Butchers' Union Local 229 v. Cudahy Packing Co.

66 Cal. 2d 925 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1967

In Textile Workers Union v. … Goodall-Sanford, Inc. 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.

Schnittger v. Old Home Consolidated Mining Co.

144 Cal. 603 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1904

(See, also, Taylor on Corporations, sec. 634; Twin Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. S. 587 ; Beach v. Miller, 130 Ill. 162 ; 1 Santa Crus R. R. Co. v. Spreckles, 65 Cal. 193 ; Sutter-Street R. R. Co. v. … But, even if they had voted for it, the transaction would not have been thereby vitiated, inasmuch as the votes of the other three members of the board were sufficient to make the resolution effective. (Porter v.

Chidester v. Consol. People's Ditch Co.

53 Cal. 56 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1878

(People v. Campbell, 30 Cal. 312 ; Brown v. McAllister, 38 Cal. 573 ; People v. Anderson, 44 Cal. 65 .) Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.

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.

Ellis v. Stephens

185 Cal. 720 · California Supreme Court · May 20, 1921

should be made into funds under the control of the advisory board. … (Stephens 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 ].)

Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 v. Thriftimart, Inc.

59 Cal. 2d 421 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1963

The cases cited for the board’s exclusive jurisdiction are not persuasive in view of the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. … See Local 174, Teamsters, etc. of America v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95 , 101 n.9 [ 82 S.Ct. 571 , 7 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 ] ; Charles Dowd Box Co. 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.

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.

Neuwald v. Brock

12 Cal. 2d 662 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1939

Practically the same position was assumed by the petitioner in the case of Kennedy v. State Personnel Board, 6 Cal. (2d) 340, 344 [ 57 Pac. (2d) 486 ]. … (See Livingstone v. MacGillivray, 1 Cal. (2d) 546 [ 36 Pac. (2d) 622 ]; State v. Kennelly, 75 Conn. 704 [ 55 Atl. 555 ].)”

Baker v. Brickell

87 Cal. 329 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1891

(On this point see Townsend v. Greely, 5 Wall. 326 ; Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 364 ; Palmer v. Low, 98 U. S. 16 ; Trenouth v. San Francisco, 100 U. S. 253 ; Le Roy v. Cunningham, 44 Cal. 599 ; Dupond v. … Barstow, 45 Cal. 450 ; Low v. Lewis, 46 Cal. 549 ; McManus v. O'Sullivan, 48 Cal. 7, 17, 18 ; Randall v. Austin, 46 Cal. 54 ; McCreery v. Sawyer, 32 Cal. 257 ; People v. Holladay, 68 Cal. 442 .)

Mack v. Jastro

126 Cal. 130 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1899

(Upon this same subject see Pierpont v. Crouch, 10 Cal. 315 ; Sacramento v. Bird, 15 Cal. 295 ; State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501 ; Charnock v. … The act of 1897 expressly authorizes the supervisors to cause the bonds to be made payable “at the treasury of the county, or at such place as such board may designate, or both.” (Stats. 1897, p. 461.) In Los Angeles v.

Page v. City of Santa Rosa

8 Cal. 2d 311 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1937

Such a regulation would be in the exercise of a function which it is unquestionably within the power of the board to exercise and the reasonableness of the board’s rules has not been questioned in this proceeding. … (Waldron v. International Water Co., supra, citing Brass v. Rathbone, 153 N. Y. 435 [ 47 N. E. 905 ]; McCarthy v. Humphrey, 105 Iowa, 535 [ 75 N. W. 314 ]; also, City of Onawa v.

Willard v. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

201 Cal. 726 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1927

These cases are Danley v. Merced Irr. Dist., 66 Cal. App. 97, 110 [ 226 Pac. 847, 852 ], and Wores v. Imperial Irr. Dist., 193 Cal. 609, 632 [ 227 Pac. 181 ]. … In this, regard respondents claim that the board had no authority to meter a part of the lands of the district and not others. This court apparently has held to the contrary (Sheward v.