Case law

In Re Isch

174 Cal. 180 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1917

Assn. v. … Arfsten v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.

Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co.

22 Cal. 405 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 2000

(Conc. *419 opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 428.) … (See, e.g., Sindell v.

Gogerty v. Coachella Valley Junior College District

57 Cal. 2d 727 · California Supreme Court · May 22, 1962

(Reed v. Norman, 48 Cal.2d 338, 342 [2] [ 309 P.2d 809 ] ; Johnson v. Sun Realty Co., 215 Cal. 382, 383 [1] [ 10 P.2d 460 ] ; Chino Land etc. Co. v. Hamaker, 171 Cal. 689, 690 [ 154 P. 850 ].) … Potter v. City Council, 102 Cal.App.2d 141 [ 227 P.2d 25 ], and Wine v.

Resner v. State Bar

67 Cal. 2d 799 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1967

The recommendation of the board is advisory, and the final determination rests with this court. The burden of establishing rehabilitation is upon the person seeking reinstatement. (Werner v. … Com. v.

California Pear Growers Assn. v. Johnson

219 Cal. 98 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1933

Co. v. Richardson, 186 Cal. 70, 72 [ 198 Pac. 1034 ], and cases cited.) … It nowhere appears that there was, on the part of the assessing board, a conscious failure to exercise that fair and impartial judgment which the law re- . quires of it. This court held in Utah Construction Co. v.

Harper v. Lamping

33 Cal. 641 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1867

.: There had been one continuance by consent of parties, and the defendant had not only been unable to find the witness Brown, or to ascertain with any certainty his place of residence, but was unable to give any satisfactory … Hpon this point, in Jackson v.

Baker v. Brickell

87 Cal. 329 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1891

(On this point see Townsend v. Greely, 5 Wall. 326 ; Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 364 ; Palmer v. Low, 98 U. S. 16 ; Trenouth v. San Francisco, 100 U. S. 253 ; Le Roy v. Cunningham, 44 Cal. 599 ; Dupond v. … Barstow, 45 Cal. 450 ; Low v. Lewis, 46 Cal. 549 ; McManus v. O'Sullivan, 48 Cal. 7, 17, 18 ; Randall v. Austin, 46 Cal. 54 ; McCreery v. Sawyer, 32 Cal. 257 ; People v. Holladay, 68 Cal. 442 .)

Maggart v. State Bar

29 Cal. 2d 439 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1946

In 1936, following the review of a disciplinary proceeding before The State Bar, in conformity with the recommendation of the Board of Governors, Roy E. Maggart was disbarred from the practice of law. (Maggart v. … It is sufficient if such findings enable this court to make an intelligent and fair review of the decision of the board. (McArthur v. State Bar, 28 Cal.2d 779, 783 [ 172 P.2d 55 ].)

Goodrum v. Seliner

178 Cal. 54 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1918

Justice Lorigan in Wall v. … Brown, 162 Cal. 307 , [ 122 Pac. 478 ]; Estate of Shirey, 167 Cal. 195 , [ 138 Pac. 994 ]; Williams v. Williams, 170 Cal. 625 , [ 151 Pac. 10 ].)

Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 828 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1999

Schroeder, board member, president, and chief executive officer; Gary B. Filler, senior vice-president and chief financial officer; and Chong-Moon Lee, founder and chairman of the board. … Notwithstanding the effort of Justice Brown to draw analogies between this action and the issues in Guice v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (1996) 89 N.Y.2d 31 [ 651 N.Y.S.2d 352 , 674 N.E.2d 282 ], and Dahl v.

Graham v. Bailard

157 Cal. 96 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1909

Board of Commissioners, 14 Mont. 292 , [ 36 Pac. 313 ]; Hentzler v. Bradbury, 5 Kan. App. 1 , [ 47 Pac. 330 ]; Willis v. Sproule, 13 Kan. 257 . … (Damrell v. Board of Supervisors, 40 Cal. 154 ; County of Sonoma v. Crozier, 118 Cal. 680, 682 , [ 50 Pac. 845 ].) It affirmatively appeared on the face of this order that Mr.

Pulcifer v. County of Alameda

29 Cal. 2d 258 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1946

(Harrison v. Colgan, 148 Cal. 69, 74, 76 [ 82 P. 674 ] ; see, also, Rutledge v. City of Eureka, 195 Cal. 404, 419 [ 234 P. 82 ]; Woods v. Potter, 8 Cal.App. 41, 46 [ 95 P. 1125 ].) … The cases holding that the “power to fix” includes the “power to change” deal *264 with general grants of power (see Fidler v. Board of Trustees, 112 Cal.App. 296, 301 [ 296 P. 912 ] ; Abraham v.

ORANGE CTY. AIR POLLUTION CTRL DIST. v. Pub. Util. Com.

4 Cal. 3d 945 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1971

Corp. v. … Corp. v.

Vaughn v. State Bar

6 Cal. 3d 847 · California Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1972

As we said in Black v. … In Moore v.

Nelson v. Trounce

184 Cal. 732 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1921

of edu- *735 cation as follows: “The duties and powers of the board of education shall be such as are now, or may hereafter be enjoined and conferred on boards of education in city and school districts by the laws of the … If this position as to the charter is correct, appellant’s position finds some support in the case on which it relies, namely, Loop Lumber Co, v.

People v. Collins

54 Cal. 2d 57 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1960

Rptr. 158 THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LEON DANIEL COLLINS et al., Appellants. THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. OBIE BROWN, JR., Appellant. Docket Nos. Crim. 6590, 6591. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. … Brown and Collins were sentenced to a state prison, and Scott was committed to the Youth Authority.

Yapp v. State Bar

62 Cal. 2d 809 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1965

In Laney v. … In Di Gaeta v.

People ex rel. Doyle v. Austin

47 Cal. 353 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

(People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 456 ; People *361 v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645 ; Fall v. Marysville, 19 Cal. 391 ; Low v. Lewis, 46 Cal. 549 .) A tax “is a charge levied by the sovereign power upon the property of its subjects. … (People v. McCreery, supra.)

McIntosh v. Funge

210 Cal. 592 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1930

And in Humboldt Lumber Mill Co. v. Crisp, supra, and Watson v. … In *602 Johnson v. Smith, 97 Cal.

Doane v. Scannell

7 Cal. 393 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

The principal questions arising in this case, are also involved in the case of The People v. … In the case of The People v. Seannell, the whole question arose upon a demurrer to defendant’s answer.