Case law

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.

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.

Baines v. Zemansky

176 Cal. 369 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1917

(Camron v. Kenfield, 57 Cal. 550 ; Farmers’ Union v. Thresher, 62 Cal. 410 ; Hobart v. Tillson, 66 Cal. 211 , [ 5 Pac. 83 ].) … (See Carter v. Superior Court, 138 Cal. 150 , [ 70 Pac. 1067 ].)

Crowley v. Genesee Mining Co.

55 Cal. 273 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

So in Goodwin v. … And in Boyington v.

In re Buckley

69 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1886

The contempt charged relates to the cases of Bonnet v. City and County of San Francisco, and Parker v. … brought before the board.

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.)

Hackethal v. Weissbein

24 Cal. 3d 55 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1979

(See Imig v. Ferrar (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 48 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 540 ] (police department); Frisk v. Merrihew (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 319 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 781 , 85 A.L.R.3d 1128 ] (school board); King v. … Goodley v. Sullivant, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d 619 , cited approvingly in Westlake Community Hosp. v.

City of Pasadena v. Porter

201 Cal. 381 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1927

Biddle v. Hussman, 23 Mo. 597, 600 , was also an action to recover rent. Board of Levee Commrs. v. … Parks v. Boston, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 198; Patterson v. Boston, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 159; Dobbins v. Brown, 12 Pa. St. 75; Workman v. Mifflin, 30 Pa. St. 362; Gluck v. Baltimore, 81 Md. 315 [ 48 Am. St.

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.

Sparks v. Caldwell

157 Cal. 401 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1910

In Haber v. … And in the case of Ponce v.

Francis v. West Virginia Oil Co.

174 Cal. 168 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1917

(Wheelock v. Warschauer, 21 Cal. 309 -316; Steinback v. Krone, 36 Cal. 303 -309; Johnson v. Chely, 43 Cal. 299 -305; Walls v. Preston, 28 Cal. 225 ; and Hendersonv. Allen, 23 Cal. 519 .) … (Brown v. Beatty, 76 Ala. 250 ; Mason v. Delaney, 44 Ark. 444 ; Brown v. Persons, 48 Ga. 61 ; Griffith v. Collins, 116 Ga. 420 , [ 42 S. E. 743 ]; Goldsberry v. Bishop, 63 Ky. 143 ; Young v.

In Re Werner

129 Cal. 567 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1900

In People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 625 , the court had under consideration an act of the legislature entitled “An act to promote drainage.” … In Woodward v.

Corenevsky v. Superior Court

36 Cal. 3d 307 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1984

Mason v. … However, although the separation of powers doctrine may preclude the court from directly ordering the board of supervisors to appropriate funds (cf. Mandel v.

Solus Indus. Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.

228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 406 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2018

(People v. … (Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 798, 815 (Olszewski); see also Brown v. Mortensen (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1052, 1064.) “We have identified several species of preemption.

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.

Ex Parte Hornef

154 Cal. 355 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1908

(See, also, State v. Fuller, 33 N. H. 259.) On the other hand, in State v. Mahony, 24 R. … (See, however, People v. Nugent, 4 Cal. 341 ; People v. Collins, 105 Cal. 504 , [ 39 Pac. 16 ].) The case at bar is practically the same as State v. Flanagan, 25 R. I. 371, [ 55 Atl. 876 ]; and State v. Heffernan, (R.

La Mesa Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District v. Hornbeck

216 Cal. 730 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1932

(Dougherty v. Henarie, 47 Cal. 9 ; 26 R. C. L., p. 404, sec. 361; State v. Board of Commrs., 89 Mont. 37 [ 296 Pac. 1 ].) The reason for this rule is well stated in Robinson v. … (Bolton v. Terra Bella Irr. Dist., 106 Cal. App. 313 [ 289 Pac. 678 ]; State v. Board of Commrs., supra.)

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 ]).

Quinn v. Windmiller

67 Cal. 461 · California Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1885

(Irvine v. Adler, 44 Cal. 559 .) … Pacheco, 48 Cal. 397 ; Moyle v. Connolly, 50 Cal. 295 ; Biggins v. Champlin, 59 Cal. 113 ; Cooper v. Vierra, 59 Cal. 282 ; and Johnson v. Brown, 63 Cal. 391 ; but none of these cases are in point here.

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.