Case law

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.

Fullerton Oil Co. v. Johnson

2 Cal. 2d 162 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1934

Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232 [10 Sup. Ct. 533, 33 L. Ed. 892 ] ; Southwestern Oil Co. v. Texas, 217 U. S. 114 [30 Sup. Ct. 496, 54 L. Ed. 688 ] ; Brown-Forman Co. v. Kentucky, 217 U. S. 563 [30 Sup. Ct. 578, 54 L. … A. 1917A, 421] ; Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U. S. 59 [32 Sup. Ct. 192, 56 L. Ed. 350 ], As was said in Brown-Forman Co. v.

In Re Alvernaz

2 Cal. 4th 924 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1992

(See People v. Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 611-612 [ 114 Cal. Rptr. 250 , 522 P.2d 1058 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 174-175 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Brown (1986) 177 Cal. … (See People v. Brown, supra, 177 Cal. App.3d 537 .)

Sinton v. Ashbury

41 Cal. 525 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1871

(Beals v. Amador County, 35 Cal. 624 ; Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 343 ; People v. Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, 11 Cal. 206 ; Sharp v. Contra Costa County, 34 Cal. 284 ; People v. … These views appear to be supported by the following authorities: Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wend, 65; Brewster v. Syracuse, 19 N. Y. 117 ; People v. McSpedon, 21 How. Pr. R. 178; People v. Pickney, 32 N. Y. 393 ; People v.

Baird v. Superior Court

204 Cal. 408 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1928

Jur. 913; 2 Freeman on Judgments 1590; Estate of Sharon, 179 Cal. 447 [ 177 Pac. 283 ]; City and County of San Francisco v. Brown, 153 Cal. 644 [ 96 Pac. 281 ]; Mohn v. Tingley, 191 Cal. 470 [ 217 Pac. 733 ]). … Baldwin, 136 Cal. 565 [ 69 Pac. 259 ]; Brown v.

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.

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.

Weatherford v. City of San Rafael

218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 394 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 2017

(Stats. 1955, ch. 1311, p. 2381; Geiger v. Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal.2d 832, 834.) … (City of Palmdale v. Board of Equalization (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 329, 332.)

Griffith v. State Bar

26 Cal. 2d 273 · California Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1945

A new rule of procedure subsequently adopted by the board and now in effect limits the introduction of a prior record. … (Herron v. State Bar, 24 Cal.2d 53 [ 147 P.2d 543 ]; Copren v.

Bolton v. Gilleran

105 Cal. 244 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1894

. *248 103 ); or improving “ such portions of the sidewalks as the city engineer may direct” (Hydes v. Joyes, 4 Bush, 464 ; 96 Am. Dec. 311 ); or “in such manner as the city superintendent shall direct.” (Thompsons v. … See, also, Phelps v. Mayor, 112 N. Y. 221 ; City of. Kankakee v. Potter, 119 Ill. 324 ; McCrowell v. City of Bristol, 89 Va. 652 .)

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

Moore v. Kerr

65 Cal. 519 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1884

hereby agrees to furnish all materials for, and construct a bridge over the Mokelumne River, at the town of Lockeford, in said San Joaquin County, in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor adopted by the board … (Smith v. Brady, 17 N. Y. 177 ; Wyckoff v. Meyers, 44 N. Y. 145 ; Stewart v. Keteltas, 36 N. Y. 388; Hudson v. McCartney, 33 Wis. 340 .)

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.

Anderson v. De Urioste

96 Cal. 404 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1892

In Gillis v. … And in Ede v.

People v. Western Air Lines, Inc.

42 Cal. 2d 621 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1954

Assn. v. Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers, 22 Cal.2d 104,107, 108 [ 136 P.2d 785 ] ; Southern Calif. Edison Co. v. Railroad Com., supra, 6 Cal.2d 737, 747 ; People v. … The board apparently did not have sufficient interest to intervene. The commission states that in more recent litigation in which the board did intervene (United Air Lines v. Pub. Util.

Dyer v. Hudson

65 Cal. 374 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1884

Section 3 of the statute of 1872, p. 804, empowers the board of supervisors to order the whole or any portion of a street macadamized, and section 4, provides that *375 said board may order such work to be done after notice … After an order is made, it is the duty of the superintendent to advertise for sealed proposals, which must be submitted to the board, which has the power to accept the lowest. In Emery v.

Pass Sch. Dist. of L.A. Cty. v. Hollywood City Sch. Dist. of L.A. Cty.

156 Cal. 416 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1909

Fairchild, 2 Wash. 479 , [ 27 Pac. 173 ]; Board of Education v. Board of Education, 30 W. Va. 424 , [ 4 S. E. 640 ], 20 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas., p. 11; Allen v. School Town of Macey, 109 Ind. 599 , [ 10 N. … The language of the supreme court of Kansas in Board of Education v. School Trustees is obiter, and later was expressly disapproved in City of Wellington v.

People v. Chambers

37 Cal. 2d 552 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1951

(See People v. Doe G. 1034, 36 Cal. 220 ; Warren v. City County of San Francisco, 150 Cal. *556 167 [ 88 P. 712 ]; Los Angeles v. Board of Supervisors, 108 Cal.App. 655 [ 292 P. 539 ]; State Land Settlement Board v. … State Personnel Board, 53 Cal.App.2d 222 [ 127 P.2d 634 ].) People v. Osgood, supra, 104 Cal.App. 133 , and People v. Kings County Dev.

People v. Burt

43 Cal. 560 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1872

(Pierpont v. Crouch, 10 Cal. 315 .) … (Sherman v. Storey, 30 Cal. 253 .) The judgment is affirmed.