Case law

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.

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 ].)

Directors Guild of America, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

64 Cal. 2d 42 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1966

In Williams v. … Union v. Perko, supra, 373 U.S. 701 ; Hanna Mining Co. v.

Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley

27 Cal. 3d 819 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1980

We adhered to Buckley in Citizens for Jobs & Energy v. … (Hopping v. Council of City of Richmond (1915) 170 Cal. 605, 610-611 [ 150 P. 977 ]; accord, Crestview Cemetery Assn. v. Dieden (1960) 54 Cal.2d 744, 756 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 427 , 356 P.2d 171 ]; Brown v.

Sehorn v. Williams

110 Cal. 621 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1895

The auditor is required by section 113 to draw his warrant in favor of every person whose claim “ has been legally examined, allowed, and ordered paid by the board of supervisors.” … (McFarland v. McCowen, 98 Cal. 329 .)

Sears v. Tuolumne County

132 Cal. 167 · California Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1901

Respondent relies upon the provisions of the section as they now are as conclusive of the rights of plaintiff; citing People v. Davidson, 79 Cal. 166 ; McMullin v. Leitch, 83 Cal. 239 ; and Blood v. Woods, 95 Cal. 78 . … The case cited in support of the text is State v. Lawrence etc.

Memorial Hospital Ass'n v. Pacific Grape Products Co.

45 Cal. 2d 634 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1955

VI, § 1725, p. 79; 19 Cal.L.Rev. 231, 367; see also Jeppi v. … The general rule is well stated in Magnavox Co. 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.

Kelsey v. Trs. of Nevada

18 Cal. 629 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

(See Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal.) The next objection is, that the act is void because the tax is apportioned according to the assessment roll of the previous year. We see nothing unconstitutional in this. … As to the notice of the meeting of the Board of Equalization, if anything more was necessary than the publication, see Cowell v. Doub ( 12 Cal. 274 ). Judgment affirmed.

Jackson v. Master Holding Corp.

16 Cal. 2d 824 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1940

Co. v. Wood, 113 Cal. 482 [ 45 Pac. 809 ] , Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. Scarborough, 216 Cal. 698 [ 16 Pac. (2d) 268 ], Nighbert v. First Nat. Bank, 26 Cal. App. (2d) 624 [ 79 Pac. (2d) 1105 ], and Turner v. … (See' discussion in Bainbridge v. Stoner, ante, p. 423 [ 106 Pac. (2d) 423 ].)

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.

Matter of Carter

141 Cal. 316 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1903

(State v. Donovan, 89 Me. 451 ; Andrews v. Board, 94 Me. 76 ; State v. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 383 ; 1 McGregor v. Supervisors, 37 Mich. 389 ; Merrick v. Board, 41 Mich. 630 ; Hayden v. Memphis, 100 Tenn. 582 ; State v. … Hawkins, 44 Ohio St. 98 ; Dongan v. District Court, 6 Colo. 534 ; Dakota v. Cox, 6 Dak. 510 ; Trimble v. People, 19 Colo. 196 ; 1 Wilson v. People, 90 Ill. 204 ; People v. Higgins, 15 Ill. 110 ; State v.

Omnibus Railroad v. Baldwin

57 Cal. 160 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

In San Francisco v. … (People v. Rich, 54 Cal. 74 .) That the Board of Supervisors may, if it sees fit so to do, grant to the plaintiff the right to use the defendant’s track upon the terms prescribed by law, we entertain no doubt.

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.

Roy v. Pos

183 Cal. 359 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1920

In the case of Moore v. … (Morrison v. Land, 169 Cal. 580, 590 , [ 147 Pac. 259 ]; Noyes v. Noyes, 224 Mass. 125 , [ 112 N. E. 850 ]; Dilger v. McQuade’s Estate, 158 Wis. 328 , [ 148 N. W. 1085 ]; Day v. Washburn, 76 N.

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 ].)

Lower Kings River Reclamation District No. 531 v. McCullah

124 Cal. 175 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1899

(Reamer v. Nesmith, 34 Cal. 624 ; Irving v. Cunningham, 66 Cal. 15 ; Helm v. Wilson, 76 Cal. 476 .) … Wickersham v.

City of Signal Hill v. County of Los Angeles

196 Cal. 161 · California Supreme Court · May 14, 1925

Code, secs. 2639, 2641; Miller v. Kern County, 137 Cal.516 [ 70 Pac. 549 ].) … (See, also, Barber v. Galloway, 195 Cal. 1 [ 231 Pac. 34 ].)

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.

S.F. & San Joaquin Valley Ry. v. City of Stockton

149 Cal. 83 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1906

Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12 ; San Francisco v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 127 U. S. 1 , [8 Sup. … Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12 .)