Case law

Tubbs v. Southern California Rapid Transit District

67 Cal. 2d 671 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1967

(Kunstman v. Mirizzi, 234 Cal.App.2d 753, 757 [2], 758 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 707 ].) The judgment is affirmed. Traynor, C. J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., Burke, J., and Sullivan, J., concurred. … If the board *678 fails or refuses to act on a claim within the time prescribed by this section, the claim shall be deemed to have been rejected by the board on the last day of the period within which the board was required

In Re Clark

63 Cal. 2d 610 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1965

(See People v. Clark, supra, 215 Cal. App.2d 734, 737 .) The board found that Clark acted for personal gain and benefit in connection with his activities for Quality Discounts, Incorporated. … The record amply supports the board’s finding of moral turpitude.

Dorsey v. Barry.

24 Cal. 449 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

(Whitney v. Board of Delegates, 14 Cal. 503 .) It is held also, in Sanders v. … In People v.

Reclamation Dist. No. 108 v. Hagar

66 Cal. 54 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1884

(Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97 ; Hager v. Rec. Dist. No. 108, 111 U. S. 701 ; Rec. Dist. No. 3 v. Goldman, 65 Cal. 635 .) 2. … The point that the legislature could not confer on the board of supervisors of one county the power to include within a district any lands within another county, is not well taken. (Hagar v. Rec. Dist.

Maurer v. Mitchell

53 Cal. 289 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1878

(The Spring Valley Water Works v. The City and County of San Francisco, 52 Cal. 111 .) … 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.”

Boreta Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

2 Cal. 3d 85 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1970

(Bowman v. Alcoholic Beverage etc. Board (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 467, 471-472 [ 340 P.2d 652 ].) In sum, as the court succinctly stated in Harris v. … (See Magit v. Board of Medical Examiners (1961) 57 Cal.2d 74, 88 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 488 , 366 P.2d 816 ].)

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.

Harney v. Benson

113 Cal. 314 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1896

And there may have been, in the judgment of the board, other reasons why this sewer should be thus constructed, although it would not be at once utilized. The cases cited from New Jersey (State v. Elizabeth, 37 N. J. … As we have seen, the work was within the general power of the board, though to construct this sewer may have been an improvident use of the power.

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.

Cohen v. Gray

70 Cal. 85 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1886

Proc., sec. 530; Hicks v. Michael, 15 Cal. 107 .) … (Linden v. Case, 46 Cal. 171 ; Bucknall v. Story, 36 Cal. 70 ; Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 647 ; N. P. R. R. Co. v. Carland, 5 Mont. 146 ; Gates v. Lane, 49 Cal. 266 .) Order reversed and cause remanded.

Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works

44 Cal. 2d 90 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1955

(Drummey v. State Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers, 13 Cal.2d 75, 84 [ 87 P.2d 848 ].) … Jockey Club, Inc. v. California Horse Racing Board, 36 Cal.2d 167, 173-174 [ 223 P.2d 1 ]; cf. Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners, 32 Cal.2d 301 [ 196 P.2d 20 ].)

People v. Escobar

3 Cal. 4th 740 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1992

In People v. … Brown, supra, 174 Cal.App.3d 762 [one-inch long laceration of victim’s vagina supports finding of great bodily injury]; People v.

People Ex Rel. Benwell v. Foutz

27 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1945

In People v. … In Cox v.

International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 145 v. City of San Diego

34 Cal. 3d 292 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1983

(Betts v. Board of Administration (1978) 21 Cal.3d 859, 863 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 582 P.2d 614 ]; see Kern v. City of Long Beach (1947) 29 Cal.2d 848, 853 [ 179 P.2d 799 ].) … (Wallace v. City of Fresno [1954] 42 Cal. 2d 180 , 184 . . .; Packer v. Board of Retirement [1950] 35 Cal. 2d 212 , 214 . . .; Kern v. City of Long Beach [1947] 29 Cal. 2d 848 , 854-855 . . . .” (Allen v.

Tonini v. State Bar

46 Cal. 2d 491 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1956

(Clark v. State Bar, 39 Cal.2d 161 at 165 [1], [2] [ 246 P.2d 1 ].) … In Waterman v. State Bar, 14 Cal.2d 224 [ 93 P.2d 95 ], an attorney with a prior record, admitting three charges of ambulance chasing and who gave false testimony to the committee, was disbarred. In Mayer v.

Jackson v. State Bar

15 Cal. 3d 372 · California Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1975

This is a proceeding to review a recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar (Board) that petitioner Richard V. … (See e.g., Spindell v.

Herrscher v. State Bar

4 Cal. 2d 399 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1935

(People v. Robinson, 32 Colo. 241 [ 75 Pac. 922 ]; Grievance Committee v. Ennis, 84 Conn. 594 [ 80 Atl. 767 ]; People v. Pio, 308 Ill. 128 [ 139 N. E. 45 ].) … (State v. Barto, 202 Wis. 329 [ 232 N. W. 553 ]; State Board of Law Examiners v. Sheldon, 43 Wyo. 522 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 226 ]; annotation 80 A. L. R. 706.)

Swamp Land District No. 307 v. Glide

112 Cal. 85 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1896

It has been decided in People v. … (Commonwealth v. Duffy, 96 Pa. St. 506; 42 Am. Rep. 554 ; Bigelow v. Bemis, 2 Allen, 497 ; Vance v. Vance, 108 U. S. 517 ; Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 599 ; Wheeler v. Jackson, 137 U. S. 255 ; Gilman v. Cutts, 23 N.

People v. Ziady

8 Cal. 2d 149 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1937

See Caha v. United States, 152 U. S. 211, 218 [14 Sup. Ct. 513, 38 L. Ed. 415, 417 ].” To the same effect is United States v. Birdsall, 233 U. S. 223 [34 Sup. Ct. 512, . 58 L. … United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506, p. 522 [31 Sup. Ct. 480, 55 L. Ed. 563 ].” (United States v. Smull, supra, p. 409 .)

Cordler v. Keffel

161 Cal. 475 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1911

of the boards. … The decision in Baddeley v. Shea, 114 Cal. 1 , [ 55 Am. St. Rep. 56 , 33 L. R. A. 747, 45 Pac. 990 ], *480 is not in conflict with this conclusion. The circumstances were different.