Case law

Eggers v. National Radio Co.

208 Cal. 308 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1929

In Paine v. … (Wickersham v. Crittenden, 106 Cal. 329, 331 [39 Pac. 603]; Ashton v. Dashaway Assn., 84 Cal. 61, 69, 70 [7 L. R. A. 809, 22 Pac. 660 , 23 Pac. 1091 ]; Whitehead v. Sweet, 126 Cal. 67, 73 [ 58 Pac. 376 ]; Shively v.

Proulx v. Graves

143 Cal. 243 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 1904

The general rule, in the absence of statutory provisions, is, that ordinances of a board of supervisors take effect immediately upon adoption. … (Board of County Commrs. v. Smith, 22 Colo, 534; State v. Friedley, 135 Ind. 130 ; Aikman v. Edwards, 55 Kan. 751 ; McCully v. State, 102 Tenn. 509 ; Gertum v. Supervisors, 109 N. Y. 170 .)

Grimes v. Hoschler

12 Cal. 3d 305 · California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1974

(See Tracy v. Contractors’ State License Board, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 601 ; Hope v. Contractors’ etc. Bd., supra, 228 Cal.App.2d at p. 425 .) … Tracy v. Contractors’ State License Board, supra, 63 Cal.2d 598 , is therefore overruled.

Henry Cowell Lime & Cement Co. v. Williams

182 Cal. 691 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1920

(Fay v. Reed, 128 Cal. 357 , [ 60 Pac. 927 ]; Bay Rock Co. v. Bell, 133 Cal. 150 , [ 65 Pac. 299 ]; McDonnell v. Gillon, 134 Cal. 329 , [ 66 Pac. 314 ] ; Williamson v. … As we held in Vale v.

Masaoka v. People

39 Cal. 2d 883 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1952

39 Cal.2d 883 (1952) HARUYE MASAOKA et al., Respondents, v. THE PEOPLE, Appellant. L. A. No. 21479. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. July 9, 1952. Fred N. Howser and Edmund G. Brown, Attorneys General, Everett W. … N.S. 260]; Moon v. Martin (1921), 185 Cal. 361, 366 [ 197 P. 77 ]; Miller & Lux v. Board of Supervisors (1922), 189 Cal. 254, 266 [ 208 P. 304 ]; In re Smith (1924), 193 Cal. 337, 340 [ 223 P. 971 ]; Elmendorf v.

City of Redondo Beach v. Barkley

151 Cal. 176 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1907

W. 108 ], under a statute providing that when a petition for opening a road is presented to the board, the county auditor shall lay it before the board “at their next session thereafter.” (See, also, State v. … (See Adcock v. Lecompt, 66 Mo. 40 .) 2.

People v. Ward

77 Cal. 113 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1888

(People v. Fong Ah Sing, 70 Cal. 11 .) *114 The case of People v. Brown, 72 Cal. 390 , is not in conflict with this. 2. The denial of the motion to strike out the evidence of the witness Moore was not error.

Baxter v. Shanley-Furness Co.

193 Cal. 558 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1924

. *561 “Before the enactment of sections 1859 and 1860 of our Civil Code, in this state, an innkeeper was held to his common-law liability as an insurer of the goods of his guests (Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221 [ 52 Am. … (Elliott on Bailments, sec. 108, p. 113; Mateer v. Brown, supra; Pinkerton v. Woodward, supra.)

Fellows v. City of Los Angeles

151 Cal. 52 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1907

(Hildreth v. Montecito Cr. W. Co., 139 Cal. 26 , [ 72 Pac. 395 ] ; Merrill v. South Side I. Co., 112 Cal. 433 , [44 Pac. 720] ; Price v. Riverside etc. Co., 56 Cal. 431 .) … In support of these contentions they cite Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255 , [10 Pac. 674] ; Vernon I. Co. v. Los Angeles, 106 Cal. 237 , [ 39 Pac. 762 ] ; and Feliz v. Los Angeles, 58 Cal. 73 .

Sparks v. Caldwell

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

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

Banaz v. Smith

133 Cal. 102 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1901

In Yarnell v. … (Hadley v. Dague, 130 Cal. 207 . See also Lent v. Tilson, 72 Cal. 428 , and Falbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 176 .) 4.

Pritchett v. Stanislaus County

73 Cal. 310 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1887

(Constitution, art. 11, sec. 6; Thomason v. Ashworth, ante, p. 73.) … The compensation fixed by. the board of trustees under section 855 is to be for all duties imposed on the marshal by the act.

People v. Langston

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 596 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2004

(People v. Carr (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 774, 780-781 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 458 ] (Carr); People v. White (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 862, 867-871 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 165 ] (White); see People v. … J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurring.

County of Los Angeles v. Jones

6 Cal. 2d 695 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1936

Dist. v. Seeley, supra, and Mulcahy v. … The resolution of intention of the board of supervisors of the County of Los Angeles declaring the intention of the board to refund said indebtedness, while not as full as that passed by the board of supervisors of the County

Day v. Jones

31 Cal. 261 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

The respondent’s first ground—that this Court has no appellate jurisdiction of the case—was fully considered in the opinion of .the Chief Justice in Knowles v. … The general features of the Acts involved in this case are the same as those of the Act of 1863, which was construed by the Court in Bourland v. Hildreth, 26 Cal. 161 .

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Whitsett

215 Cal. 400 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1932

The case of State v. … The Arizona case (State v. Garfield Building Co., supra) is not applicable for the same reason. The Illinois ease (Mayhew v.

City of Ukiah v. Fones

64 Cal. 2d 104 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1966

(City of Ukiah v. Board of Trustees (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 344 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 811 ].) The case then returned to the trial court for a determination of Fones’ rights to back salary and to reinstatement. … (Mass v. Board of Education (1964) 61 Cal.2d 612, 616 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 394 P.2d 579 ]; Stockton v. Department of Employment (1944) 25 Cal.2d 264, 273-274 [ 153 P.2d 741 ].)

Griffin v. Boyle

202 Cal. 95 · California Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1927

In each a writ of mandate is sought to compel the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco to appropriate for the conduct of the department of elections the respective amounts itemized and set forth in … A similar question was presented to this court and decided adversely to petitioner’s in the ease of Fitzgerald v.

L.A. Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.

212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 107 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2016

In Littlefield v. … Name of Opinion Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 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.