Case law

Freshour v. Howard

142 Cal. 501 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1904

In Farnham v. … In People v.

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.

Pullman Co. v. Richardson

185 Cal. 484 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1921

Expressed in terms of tax the comparison is compiled by the attorney-general from the reports of the state board of equalization, and is shown in the next table. “Assessment by State Board op Equalization. … ........... 5 2.91 84.778 73,209.40 1916 ........... 6 2.824 100.196 82,115.94 1 State Board of Equalization special report of 1912. 2 State Board of Equalization -special report of 1912. 3 State Board of Equalization special

Metropolitan Water District v. Toll

1 Cal. 2d 421 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 1934

This court has recognized the same rule in principle in Reclamation District No. 1500 v. Reclamation Board, 197 Cal. 482 [ 241 Pac. 552 ].) … Bank v. Escondido Irr. Dist., 144 Cal. 329 [ 77 Pac. 937 ] , Peery v. City of Los Angeles, 187 Cal. 753 [ 203 Pac. 992 , 19 A. L. R. 1044], O’Farrell v.

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.

Holsinger v. Holsinger

44 Cal. 2d 132 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1955

Judith was placed in a boarding school especially suited to her individual needs. … (Prouty v. Prouty, 16 Cal.2d 190, 191 [ 105 P.2d 295 ]; accord: Gantner v. Gantner, 39 Cal.2d 272, 275 [ 246 P.2d 923 ]; Clarke v. Clarke, 35 Cal.2d 259, 261 [ 217 P.2d 401 ].)

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 .)

Schullman v. State Bar

10 Cal. 3d 526 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1973

Petitioner, however, bears the burden of showing that the board’s action is erroneous or unlawful. (In re Higbie (1972) 6 Cal.3d 562, 569 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 865 , 493 P.2d 97]; Alkow v. … Although the ultimate resolution of discipline rests with this court, we attach great weight to the recommendation of the board. (Vaughn v.

Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. County of Riverside

48 Cal. 3d 84 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1989

Board of Education (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 571, 580-581 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 183 ]; Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Suprs. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41, 57-58 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 480 ]. … Board of Equalization.”

People v. Turnbull

93 Cal. 630 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1892

Every person who gives or offers a bribe to any member of any common council, board of supervisors, or board of trustees of any county, city, or corporation, with intent to corruptly influence such member in his action on … An irrigation district organized under the Wright Act is a public corporation ( Crall 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 ].)

Orange County Air Pollution Control District v. Public Utilities Commission

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

(Department of Water and Power v. Hearing Board of the Air Pollution Control District of the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court No. 971991, judgment entered July 9, 1970.) … Corp. 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.

Bay Cities Transit Co. v. City of Los Angeles

16 Cal. 2d 772 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1940

(City of San Mateo v. Railroad Commission, 9 Cal. (2d) 1 [ 68 Pac. (2d) 713 ].) … App. (2d) 525 [ 54 Pac. (2d) 49 ], and Switzler v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 104 Cal.

Guaranty Loan Co. v. Fontanel

183 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · May 20, 1920

(Potomac Oil Co. v. Dye, 10 Cal. App. 534, 539 , [ 102 Pac. 677 ]; 2 Cook on Corporations, sec. 619.) … Co. v. Versault et al., *10 50 Cal. 534 , [Ann. Cas. 1916E, 1040, note].) The question presents itself, therefore, as to whether or not these meetings were so attended.

People v. Deysher

2 Cal. 2d 141 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1934

Co. v. Wheeler, 68 Cal. App. 592 [ 229 Pac. 1020 ] ; County of Shasta v. Moody, 90 Cal. App. 519 [ 265 Pac. 1032 ] ; Hobbs, Wall & Co. v. Moran, 109 Cal. App. 316 [ 293 Pac. 145 ] ; Moody v. … Co. v. Baldwin, 2 Cal. App. 606 [ 84 Pac. 284 ] , cited with approval in Worrell v. Jurden, 36 Nev. 85 [ 132 Pac. 1158 ], and Kerr v. State ex rel., 65 Ind. App. 102 [ 116 N. E. 590 ]; O’Neill v.

Schmitt v. City of San Francisco

100 Cal. 302 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1893

In Archer v. … In Cincinnati v.

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.

De Haven v. Berendes

135 Cal. 178 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1901

The order of the board, and the assessment based thereon, were therefore void. (Capron v. Hitchcock, 98 Cal. 430 , and cases cited; Ryan v. Altschul, 103 Cal. 176 , and cases cited.) … (Dehail v. Morford, 95 Cal. 460 ; Hewes v. Reis, 40 Cal. 263 ; Chambers v. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 526 ; Burke v. Turney, 54 Cal. 487 ; Shipman v. Forbes, 97 Cal. 574 ; Chase v. Treasurer etc., 122 Cal. 544, 546 .)

Perry v. Ames

26 Cal. 372 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1864

In Bowen v. … (Conant v. Conant, 10 Cal. 253 .) In the case here referred to, Mr.