Case law

Strozynski v. Strozynski

97 Cal. 189 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1893

In Brown v. Brown, 60 Cal. 579 , a divorce was granted the wife on the ground of extreme cruelty. The trial court awarded her one half of the community property. … Under this statute the case of Eidenmuller v. Eidenmuller, 37 Cal. 364 , was decided.

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.

People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Squires

14 Cal. 12 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

In Merritt v. … Smith v.

People v. Wingo

14 Cal. 3d 169 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1975

Rptr. 765 ] (sale of marijuana), People v. Brown (1973) 35 Cal. App.3d 317, 325-328 [ 110 Cal. Rptr. 854 ] (unlawful sexual intercourse), and In re Maston (1973) 33 Cal. App.3d 559, 561-566 [ 109 Cal. … (See Weems v.

Patterson v. Hanley

136 Cal. 265 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1902

In Farnham v. Boland, 134 Cal. 151 , this court made an even stricter application of the principle of Lauer v. Estes . … Our election law seems to have been copied as to the form of the ballot from the New York statute, and in May, 1898, before its adoption here, the case of People v. Board of Canvassers, 156 N.

People Ex Rel. Taxpayers of Excelsior Sch. Dist. v. Hanford Union High Sch. Dist.

148 Cal. 705 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1906

On September 7,1898, the board of supervisors of Kings County made its order reciting the conditions of admission agreed on, and also that the board of trustees .of Excelsior District had in writing accepted such conditions … McBean v. Fresno, 112 Cal. 159, [ 44 Pac. 358 , 53 Am. St.

President & Trustees v. San Diego & Los Angeles Railroad

44 Cal. 106 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

(See, also, Boyd v. Blankman, 29 Cal. 19 .) In Pickett v. … In Aberdeen Railway Company v.

In Re Shull

23 Cal. 2d 745 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1944

The board fixed his term at five years under the second count. … (Ex parte Ray, 18 Okla.Cr. 167 [ 193 P. 635 ]; Henratty v. Zerbst, 9 F.Supp. 230 ; see Christianson v. Zerbst, 89 F.2d 40 ; In re Herriff, 104 Cal.App. 222 [ 285 P. 927 ].)

Hammond v. Stanley

5 Cal. 2d 783 · 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.

People ex rel. Hastings v. Kewen

69 Cal. 215 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1886

The petition in this case is based on the fact of such affiliation, and it was held by this court in Foltz v. … The selection of the respondent as registrar by the board of directors existing under the act of March 26, 1878, was therefore a legal selection, and he is rightfully in office until removed by that board. *217 Judgment reversed

People ex rel. Fleming v. Shorb

100 Cal. 537 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1893

I think the foregoing construction, 996 of the Political Code, warranted by the decision of Department Two of this court in case of the People v. Brite, 55 Cal. 79 . 2. … (Flynn v. Abbott, 16 Cal. 359 .) It is therefore unnecessary to *542 decide whether or not the approval of relator’s bond was sufficient. 3.

Carmona v. Division of Industrial Safety

13 Cal. 3d 303 · California Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1975

(See, e.g., Covert v. State Board of Equalization (1946) 29 Cal.2d 125, 133 [ 173 P.2d 545 ].) … (See, e.g., Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 258 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 ]; In re Lavine (1935) 2 Cal.2d 324, 327 [ 41 P.2d 161 , 42 P.2d 311 ].)

Citizens Against Forced Annexation v. Local Agency Formation Commission

32 Cal. 3d 816 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1982

The City, ironically itself the product of litigation (see Curtis v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 7 Cal.3d 942 [ 104 Cal. … Board of Supervisors, supra, 7 Cal.3d 942, 951-952 .)

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.

Welsh v. Bramlet

98 Cal. 219 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1893

In Dougherty v. … (San Luis Obispo Co. v. Graves, 84 Cal. 71 .)

Rocca v. Boyle

166 Cal. 94 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1913

V, chap. III, sec. 2, Stats. 1899, p. 278.) The general law relating to the powers and duties of district attorneys of counties provides that "The following are county charges:. . . 2. … This was recognized as the effect of this provision in Humiston v. Shaffer, 145 Cal. 197 , [ 78 Pac. 651 ]. It was expressly decided in Langdon v.

Crowley v. Genesee Mining Co.

55 Cal. 273 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

So in Goodwin v. … And in Boyington v.

Melancon v. Superior Court

42 Cal. 2d 698 · California Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1954

(See State Board of Equalization v. … In Brown 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.

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.