Case law

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 .)

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.

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.

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 ].)

Manufacturers Life Insurance v. Superior Court

10 Cal. 4th 257 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1995

Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ]; Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 734-735 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ].) … Code, §§ 66524, 65521 [same]; Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters [(1946)] 29 Cal.2d [34,] 42 [ 172 P.2d 867 ] [same]; cf. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17000 [defining ‘Unfair Practices Act’].)

Obrien v. Jones

96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 205 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2000

BROWN, J., Dissenting.— The wanton pursuit of power is not a new problem. … Superior Court v.

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.”

Ex Parte Lemon

143 Cal. 558 · California Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1904

(People v. Whipple, 47 Cal. 592 ; Buck v. City of Eureka, 109 Cal. 504 , 508.) … Louis v. Bircher, 7 Mo. App. 169 ), and in Fulguin v.

Boyle v. Superior Court

176 Cal. 671 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1917

It was alleged that the Western Magnesite Development Company was a mining corporation owning magnesite claims of large value; that dissension had arisen in the board of directors, which board consisted of but four persons … In Sternberg v. Wolff, 56 N. J. Eq. 389, [ 67 Am. St. Rep. 494 , 39 L. R. A. 762, 39 Atl. 397 ], difficulties had arisen, as here, in a board of directors consisting of four members.

Segretti v. State Bar

15 Cal. 3d 878 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1976

(Black v. … (Kastigar v.

In Re Peppers

189 Cal. 682 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1922

In the case of Hewitt v. Board of Medical Examiners, 148 Cal. 590 [ 113 Am. St. Rep. 315 , 7 Ann. Cas. 750, 3 L. R. A. (N. … (People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 624 ; Ex parte Cox, 63 Cal. 21 ; Board of Harbor Commissioners v. Redwood Co., 88 Cal. 491 [ 22 Am. St. Rep. 321 , 26 Pac. 375 ] ; Hewitt v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra.)

Grand Lodge of I. O. G. T. v. Markham

102 Cal. 169 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1894

This is an original proceeding in which the petitioner asks this court to issue its writ of mandate directed to the state board of examiners of the state of California, requiring said board to allow the petitioner the sum … minor orphan supported by the petitioner in its orphan asylum, and for whose support during the period covered by its settlement with the state there has been paid by others a sum less than ten dollars per month, the state board

McKim v. Imperial Irrigation District

201 Cal. 110 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1927

These rulings were in harmony with the cases of Stevenson v. Colgan, 91 Cal. 649 [ 25 Am. St. Rep. 230 , 14 L. R. A. 459, 27 Pac. 1089 ] ; Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 535 [ 24 L. … Notes] ; State v. Cimningham, 83 Wis. 90 [ 35 Am. St. Rep. 27 , 17 L. R. A. 145, 53 N. W. 35 ].

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.

Odd Fellows' Cemetery Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco

140 Cal. 226 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1903

(People v. Pratt, 129 N. Y. 68 ; Presbyterian Church v. Mayor etc., 5 Cow. 538 ; Coates v. Mayor etc., 7 Cow. 585 ; Kincaid’s Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 411; 1 Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109 Mass. 22 ; City Council v. … Co. v. Crescent City etc. Co., 111 U. S. 746 ; Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659 ; New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Louisiana Light etc. Co., 115 U. S. 672 ; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 ; Walla Walla v.

Estate of Quinn

43 Cal. 2d 785 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1955

EDMUND G BROWN, as Attorney General, etc., Appellant, v. PRESTON HATCH, as Guardian, etc., Respondent. S. F. No. 18964. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. Jan. 14, 1955. Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, W. R. … (Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 374, 379 [ 26 P. 206 ].)" (Estate of Strong, 119 Cal. 663, 666-667 [ 51 P. 1078 ]; see, also, McPike v. Superior Court, 220 Cal. 254, 258 [ 30 P.2d 17 ]; Bales v.

In Re Arnoff

22 Cal. 3d 740 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1978

The disciplinary board unanimously adopted the committee’s findings as amended by the board. In amending it found that the Armstead case was settled at a time when petitioner “knew” Dr. … In proceedings to review disciplinary recommendations of the State Bar, the burden is on petitioner to show the board’s recommendation is erroneous. (See Mack v.