Case law

Sponable v. Dare

196 Cal. 29 · California Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1925

Y. 15 ; Davison v. Rake, 44 N. J. Eq. 506 [ 16 Atl. 227 ]; Jesseph v. Westerberg, 92 Wash. 602 [ 162 Pac. 1004 ] ; Davis v. Brown, 112 Wash. 121 [ 191 Pac. 1098 ].) … In the case of Crew v.

MacPhail v. Court of Appeal

39 Cal. 3d 454 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1985

(See State Personnel Bd. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra.) … 4 He relies centrally on Wong Yang Sing v.

People v. Mayoff

42 Cal. 3d 1302 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1986

In the first place, contrary to appellant’s assertion, there is no indication that Agent Brown negligently or intentionally omitted the *1321 fact of multiple dwellings from the warrant affidavit. (See People v. … Detective Vulich testified that both structures looked like dwellings to him from the air, but there is no evidence that this opinion was shared with, or by, Agent Brown. (Cf., United States v.

County of Placer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

50 Cal. 2d 182 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1958

The shortage was formally called to the attention of the board of supervisors on November 16, 1953. … Co. v.

Duggan v. State Bar

17 Cal. 3d 416 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1976

These are consolidated proceedings to review recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar (Board) in L.A. … (Rule 34.1, Rules Proc. of State Bar, now rule 27.20; Spindell v. State Bar (1975) 13 Cal.3d 253, 260-261 , and fn. 5 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 480 , 530 P.2d 168 ].)

Hogan v. State Bar

36 Cal. 2d 807 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1951

Rep. 59]; Bar Association v. Philbrook, 35 Cal.App. 460 [ 170 P. 440 ].) … Code, §47(2); Gosewisch v. Doran, 161 Cal. 511 [ 119 P. 656 , Ann.Cas. 1913D 442].) It is also true that a fair comment upon candidates for public office is not an actionable libel. (Snively v.

People v. Shuey

13 Cal. 3d 835 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1975

Browning (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 513, 521 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 155 ]), the sufficiency of pleadings (McCowen v. Pew (1912) 18 Cal.App. 302, 313 [ 123 P. 191 ]; Lubarsky v. … (DiGenova v. State Board of Education (1955) 45 Cal.2d 255 [ 288 P.2d 862 ].) Thereafter an appellate decision determined that the relevant legislation applied prospectively only. (Fountain v.

City St. Improvement Co. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.

153 Cal. 776 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1908

The limitation upon the powers thus to subject lands held for public purposes to such assessments is indicated bjr the case of Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110 , [ 23 Am. St. … L. 504 ; School District v. Board of Improvements, 65 Ark. 343 , [ 46 S. W. 418 ] ; Sioux City v. Ind. School District, 55 Iowa, 150 , [ 7 N. W. 488 ] ; City of Atlanta v.

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.)

Oroville & Va. R.R. v. Supervisors of Plumas Cty.

37 Cal. 354 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

The subscription was to be made upon the books of the company, and entered in the records of the Board. … (Tapping on Mand. 282; see, also, People v. Romero, 18 Cal. 90 ; Crandall v. Amador County, 20 Cal. 72 .)

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.

Pollok v. City of San Diego

118 Cal. 593 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1897

That was the case of Jacobs v. Board of Supervisors, 100 Cal. 121. … In Jacobs v. Board of Supervisors, supra, the action of the board in fixing water rates was expressly authorized by the constitution to be by resolution or by ordinance.

Smith v. Broderick

107 Cal. 644 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1895

The same principle was repeated in Shaw v. Statler, 74 Cal. 258 , and Schwartz v. Wilson, 75 Cal. 504 . (See also Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 114 ; 23 Am. St. Rep. 451 .) … In Betts v.

Townsend v. State Bar

32 Cal. 2d 592 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1948

Townsend challenges the determination of the Board of Governors in three particulars: (1) that the order increasing the suspension was improper; (2) that under the law stated in Davis v. … (Michal v. Adair, 66 Cal.App.2d 382 [ 152 P.2d 490 ].) The correction in findings made by the Board of Governors was, as The State Bar contends, merely to conform to stipulations.

People v. Jackson

49 Cal. 3d 1170 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1989

I write separately because I believe defendant’s claim of so-called “Brown” error is more substantial than may appear from a reading of the majority opinion. (People v. … Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ].)

Kadish v. JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 778 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 2003

7 Cal.Rptr.3d 778 (2003) 81 P.3d 223 KADISH v. JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS. No. S120631. Supreme Court of California. December 23, 2003. … Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 29.1, is deferred pending further order of the court. *779 GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Pappadatos v. Superior Court of S.F.

209 Cal. 334 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1930

The word “shall” as employed therein has, in the interpretation of statutes, often been held merely directory (Board of Education v. Board of Trustees, 96 Cal. 42 [ 30 Pac. 838 ] ; Board of Education v. … Board of Trustees, 129 Cal. 599 [ 62 Pac. 173 ]; In re Chadbourne, 15 Cal. App. 363, 369 [ 114 Pac. 1012 ] ; People v. High School Dist., 62 Cal. App. 67, 73 [ 216 Pac. 959 ]).

Rivera v. City of Fresno

6 Cal. 3d 132 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1971

Code, § 37101; City of Commerce v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 387, 390 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 143 ] [3, 4].) … (Geiger v. Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal.2d 832, 837 [ 313 P.2d 545 ].)

Quint v. Hoffman

103 Cal. 506 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1894

(Dean v. Davis, 51 Cal. 411 ; Reclamation District v. Gray, 95 Cal. 601 ; Swamp Land District No. 150 v. Silver, 98 Cal. 53 .) … in a court of equity until he has paid the amount the board ha!

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 .)