Case law

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.

Webb v. State Bar

47 Cal. 2d 866 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1957

(Palmquist v. State Bar (1954), 43 Cal.2d 428, 435 [ 274 P.2d 640 ] ; Choate v. State Bar (1953), 41 Cal.2d 399, 405 [ 260 P.2d 609 ].) … (See also Sullivan v. State Bar (1946), 28 Cal.2d 488, 494 [ 170 P.2d 888 ].)

People v. Empire Gold & Silver Mining Co.

33 Cal. 171 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1867

(Moore v. Del Valle, 28 Cal. 174 ; Harper v. Minor, 27 Cal. 107 ; Abbott v. Douglass, 28 Cal. 299 .) … D. 1866, as it stood when delivered to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by the Assessor of the county, certified by the Clerk of said Board, to be a correct copy thereof, as it then stood.”

Bankers Life Co. v. Canterbury

5 Cal. 2d 782 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1936

This is contrary to our decision in Brown v. Ferdon, L. A. … For the reasons advanced in Brown v. Ferdon, supra, and upon the authority thereof, the judgment herein is reversed.

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.

Brooks v. County of Tulare

117 Cal. 465 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1897

V. Peat Fuel Go. v. Tuck, 53 Cal. 304 : “The authorities appear to be uniform to the effect that where a sum of money has been paid upon a consideration which has wholly failed, the law implies a promise to refund it.” … This was, in effect, so held in Loomis v. County of Los Angeles , 59 Cal.456.

Cheong v. Antablin

16 Cal. 4th 1063 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1997

In 1984, the Placer County Board of Supervisors enacted the Skier Responsibility Code of Placer County (Placer Code). (Placer Code, § 12.130 et seq.) … J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Belser v. Hoffschneider

104 Cal. 455 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1894

Barber v. Board of Supervisors, 42 Cal. 630 , was a proceeding to review the action of the board upon an appeal from an assessment for grading a street. … (People v. Supervisors, 8 Cal. 58 ; Waugh v. Chauncey, 13 Cal. 11 ; People v. Supervisors of Marin County, 10 Cal. 344 ; Robinson v. Board of Supervisors, 16 Cal. 209 ; Emery v. Bradford, 29 Cal. 85 ; Keys v.

Prang v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bd.

California Supreme Court · May 30, 2024

The State Board, 32  PRANG v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD Opinion of the Court by Evans, J. … 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.

Martin v. Superior Court

194 Cal. 93 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1924

(Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. 238 [ 27 Pac. 604 ]; McDonald v. Conniff, 99 Cal. 386 [ 34 Pac. 71 ] ; Darcy v. Mayor etc. of San Jose, supra; People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 105 Cal. 576 [ 38 Pac. 905 ]; Deyoe v. … (Stevenson v. *102 Colgan, 91 Cal. 649 [ 25 Am. St. Rep. 230 , 14 L. R. A. 459, 27 Pac. 1089 ]; Grumbach v. Lelande, 154 Cal. 679 [ 98 Pac. 1059 ]; People v.

Schullman v. State Bar

16 Cal. 3d 631 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1976

Upon review of both proceedings, the disciplinary board recommended disbarment. While this court is not bound by the findings and recommendation of the disciplinary board (Glickman v. … The burden is upon one seeking review of a recommendation of the board" to show that its findings are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful (Simmons v.

Grimbley v. Harrold

125 Cal. 24 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1899

(Jory v. Supreme Council L. of H., 105 Cal. 20, 29 ; 45 Am. St. Rep. 17 ; Adams v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 105 Cal. 325 ; 45 Am. St. Rep. 45 ; Hoeft v. Supreme Lodge K. of H., 113 Cal. 91 ; Leaf v. … Relief Dept. v. White, 41 Neb. 547 ; 43 Am. St. Rep. 701 ; Daniher v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 10 Utah, 110 ; see, also, Whitney v. Association, 25 Minn. 378 ; Bacon on Benefit Societies, secs. 71, 450; Moore v.

Krieger v. State Bar

43 Cal. 2d 604 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1954

He máy not now bring in new evidence when he did not present his entire defense before the trial committee and when he failed to request a hearing beforé the Board of Governors. (Shaeffer v. … (Roark v. State Bar, 5 Cal.2d 665 [ 55 P.2d 839 ]; Laney v. State Bar, 7 Cal.2d 419 [ 60 P.2d 845 ] ; Stanford v. State Bar, 15 Cal.2d 721 [ 104 P.2d 635 ] ; Yale v. State Bar, 16 Cal.2d 175 [ 105 P.2d 112 ].)

Jobson v. Fennell

35 Cal. 711 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

(Medhurst v. Waite, 3 Burr, 1,259; Rex v. Clarke, 1 Dunford and East. 679; Willcock on Constables, 17, 15; 13 Law Library, N. S.) … (Taylor v. Brown, 4 Cal. 188 .) Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.

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.

Pacific Paving Company v. Gallett

137 Cal. 174 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1902

The case is substantially similar to that of Thomason v. Carroll, 132 Cal. 148 . … The case, we think, cannot be distinguished from Thomason v. Carroll , cited above, and clearly comes within the authority of the decision in that ease and in City Street Imp. Co. v.

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.

People v. Stacy

74 Cal. 373 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1887

The answer to this objection is, that *375 the board of supervisors had authority to appoint a collector of license taxes (People v. Ferguson, 65 Cal. 288 ; County of Amador v. … (Hubert v. Mendheim, 64 Cal. 213 .)