Case law

People v. Wright

167 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1914

Brown by means of a criminal abortion performed by him upon the body of Hattie F. Brown, from which operation her death resulted. … (State v. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299 ; State v. Alcorn, 7 Idaho, 599 , [ 97 Am. St. Rep. 252 , 64 Pac. 1014 ] ; State v. Power, 24 Wash. 34 , [63 L. R. A. 902, 63 Pac. 1112 ]; State v. Glass, 5 Or. 73 ; State v.

Reid v. Reid

112 Cal. 274 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1896

(Strozynski v. Strozynksi, 97 Cal. 189 ; Brown v. Brown, 60 Cal. 579 ; Eslinger v. Eslinger, 47 Cal. 62 .)

Hackett v. State

103 Cal. 144 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1894

In Cabot v. Winsor, 1 Allen, 546 , the contract was for the sale of five hundred bundles, more or less, of gunnybags, at ten cents per bag. … That is the case of Brawley v.

Keyes v. City & County of San Francisco

177 Cal. 313 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1918

of Education, or by any other Board, then within one month after the first regular meeting of the proper Board held next after the demand accrued; . . ." … Sierra County, 7 Cal. 121 ; People v. Board of Supervisors, 28 Cal. 429 ; Alden v. Alameda County, 43 Cal. 270 ; Rhoda v. Alameda County, 52 Cal. 350 ; Bigelow v. Los Angeles, 141 Cal. 503 , [ 75 P. 111 ].)

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.

Contractor's Safety Ass'n v. California Compensation Insurance

48 Cal. 2d 71 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1957

(Chavez v. Times Mirror, 185 Cal. 20, 23 [ 195 P. 666 ]; French v. Senate of State of California, 146 Cal. 604, 607 [ 80 P. 1031 , 2 Ann.Cas. 756, 69 L.R.A. 556 ]; Mendez v. Pacific Gas & Elec. … Co., 115 Cal.App.2d 192, 195 [ 251 P.2d 773 ]; Clark v. City of Pasadena, 102 Cal.App.2d 198, 200 [ 227 P.2d 306 ] ; Livermore v. Beal, 18 Cal.App.2d 535, 539 [ 64 P.2d 987 ] ; Fey v. Rossi Imp.

Delgado v. TRAX BAR AND GRILL

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 102 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2003

4 Cal.Rptr.3d 102 (2003) 75 P.3d 29 DELGADO v. TRAX BAR AND GRILL. No. S117287. Supreme Court of California August 27, 2003. … . *103 GEORGE, C.J., and KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman

152 Cal. 716 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1908

(Smith v. O'Hara, 43 Cal. 376 ; Bradley v. Harkness, 26 Cal. 77 .) … Co. v. Park, 129 Cal. 443 , [ 62 Pac. 87 ].) And under the present statute the contract rights prevail in all cases, the boards of supervisors being powerless to affect or interfere with them. (Stats. 1897, p. 49.)

Shannon v. City of Los Angeles

205 Cal. 366 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1928

(Chaplin v. Superior Court, 81 Cal. App. 367 [ 253 Pac. 954 ].) … Service by mail of the notice or statement in question is not provided for in said section (see Blalock v. Ridgway, 92 Cal.

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 ].)

Ex parte Shen

98 Cal. 681 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1893

State laws are, of course, for the general good, and cannot always answer the peculiar wants of particular localities.” ( Wood v. City of Brooklyn, 14 Barb. 426 . See also City v. … (McInerney v. City of Denver, 29 Pac. Rep. [Colo.] 518.)

McCann v. Sierra County

7 Cal. 121 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

any case, for any demand, unless he or she shall first present his or her claim to the board of supervisors for allowance, and the same shall be rejected in whole or part.” … The declaration contains no averment that said claim for damages was presented to the board of supervisors and rejected by them, yet such an averment was necessary, to enable the plaintiff to recover. See Ellisen v.

Scheerer v. Edgar

76 Cal. 569 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1888

Another part of this act gives the board power to *571 “order paid any final judgment against said city and county.” … ) dollars be and the same is hereby authorized to be made out of the general fund in payment to Paul Friedhofer in satisfaction of judgment rendered for plaintiff and against the defendant in the suit of Paul Friedhofer v.

Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center

27 Cal. 3d 614 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1980

Morrison v. State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal.3d 214, 230-233 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 461 P.2d 375 ].) … Byrd v. Savage (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 396, 402-403 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 881 ]; Strode v. Board of Medical Examiners (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 291, 303-304 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 879 ]; Steele v. L.A.

Harrison v. Roberts

145 Cal. 173 · California Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1904

v. … In Jacobs v.

Foster v. Foster

5 Cal. 2d 669 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1936

(Foster v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. (2d) 125. [ 47 Pac. (2d) 701 ].) … Proc.; Ex parte Queirolo, 119 Cal. 635 [ 51 Pac. 956 ] ; Vosburg v. Vosburg, 137 Cal. 493 [ 70 Pac. 473 ] ; Browning v. Browning, 208 Cal. 518, 527 [ 282 Pac. 503 ].) With this argument we agree.

Spaulding v. Wesson

115 Cal. 441 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1896

Spaulding v. … (Partridge v. Lucas, 99 Cal. 519 ; Ryan v. Altschul, 103 Cal. 174 ).

Martin v. Kentfield School District

35 Cal. 3d 294 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1983

. *300 (King v. Berkeley Unified School Dist., supra, 89 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1023 .) As Martin concedes, it was within the power of the board to establish requirements for the vacant position. … (Waldron v. Sulphur Springs Union School Dist. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 503, 505 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 132 ].)

Terry v. City of Berkeley

41 Cal. 2d 698 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1953

Retirement Board, 17 Cal.2d 356 [ 110 P.2d 37 ] ; Brophy v. Employees Retirement System, 71 Cal. App.2d 455 [ 162 P.2d 939 ] ; McCarthy v. Oakland, 60 Cal. App.2d 546, 547 [ 141 P.2d 4 ] ; Brooks v. … (Robertson v. Miller, 276 U.S. 174 [ 48 S.Ct. 266 , 72 L.Ed. 517 ] ; Kern v. City of Long Beach, supra, 29 Cal.2d 848 ; Kavanagh v. Board of Police P. F. Commrs., 134 Cal. 50 [ 66 P. 36 ] ; Vero v. Sacramento City E. B.

Herron v. State Bar

24 Cal. 2d 53 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1944

(R ing v. State Bar, 4 Cal.2d 196, 197-198 [ 47 P.2d 704 ]; Mills v. State Bar, 6 Cal.2d 565, 567 [ 58 P.2d 1273 ] ; Petersen v. … (Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal.2d 75, 78 [ 39 P.2d 403 ].) As was said in Prime v.