Case law

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.

People v. Cook

58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 340 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 2007

(See, e.g., People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 569-570 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 73 P.3d 1137 ].) … (E.g., People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 403-404; People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 511 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45 , 40 P.3d 754 ]; People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1055 .) L.

Whitehead v. Davie

189 Cal. 715 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1922

Supp. 123 ; People v. Abbott, 274 111. 380 [Ann. Cas. 1918D, 450, 113 N. E. 696 ]; State v. Love, 89 Neb. 149 [Ann. Cas. 1912C, 542, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 607, 131 N. W. 196 ].) … The decision of the district court of appeal, first district, division two, in Rumetsch v. Davie, 47 Cal.

Hackethal v. Weissbein

24 Cal. 3d 55 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1979

(See Imig v. Ferrar (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 48 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 540 ] (police department); Frisk v. Merrihew (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 319 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 781 , 85 A.L.R.3d 1128 ] (school board); King v. … Goodley v. Sullivant, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d 619 , cited approvingly in Westlake Community Hosp. v.

Bankers Life Co. v. Canterbury

5 Cal. 2d 782 · 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.

County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

13 Cal. 3d 721 · California Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1975

and the executive officer-clerk of the board of supervisors. … (United States v.

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.

Perine v. Lewis

128 Cal. 236 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1900

In has been held, however, in many cases, that a resolution in this form is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the board to order the *Page 238 improvement. (Williams v. … (Ryan v. Altschul, 103 Cal. 174 ; Kenny v. Kelly, 113 Cal. 364 .)

Stanislaus County Dairymen's Protective Ass'n v. County of Stanislaus

8 Cal. 2d 378 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1937

Lim., p. 228; School District No. 7, etc., v. Hunnicutt, *390 (D. C. Okl.) 51 Fed. (2d) 528; People v. Kuder, 93 Cal. … It is said in the case of Martin v.

Yosemite Stage & Turnpike Co. v. Dunn

83 Cal. 264 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1890

The roads laid out within the grant, being under the charge and supervision of the board of commissioners, were not to be managed as by a board of supervisors of a county, or a county and city, and the board of commissioners … The state could not, under the terms of the act of Congress making the grant for a special public use, commit its management to any other body than the board of commissioners. (Ashburner v. California, 103 U.

Libertarian Party v. Eu

28 Cal. 3d 535 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1980

Brown, supra, 415 U.S. 724 ; Bullock v. Carter (1972) 405 U.S. 134 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 92 , 92 S.Ct. 849 ]; Williams v. Rhodes, supra, 393 U.S. 23 ) or deny the franchise itself (Dunn v. … (Storer v. Brown, supra, 415 U.S. 724, 733 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 714, 725 ].)

Wells v. Wood

114 Cal. 255 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1896

If it was assessed for more than its lawful proportion, the defendant waived the error by failing to appeal to the board of supervisors, and the error cannot be corrected on this appeal. (Perine v. … Forbush, 97 Cal. 305 ; McDonald v. Conniff, 99 Cal. 386 ; Dowling v. Conniff, 103 Cal. 75 ; Warren v. Riddell, 106 Cal. 352 .) 3.

People ex rel. Love v. Ashbury

46 Cal. 523 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

.: It was determined by the unanimous opinion of the Court in the recent case of the Savings and Loan Society v. Austin, ante, p. 415, that solvent debts are liable to taxation. … It is not intended that the Board should act in the matter without regard to the action or non-action of the Collector, but the purpose is to give the Board authority to cancel such of the taxes returned delinquent and uncollected

Matter of the Application of Barmore

174 Cal. 286 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1917

(Emerson v. McNeil, 84 Ark. 552 , [15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 715, 106 S. W. 479 ]; Williams v. State, 85 Ark. 464, [ 122 Am. St. Rep. 47 , 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 482, 108 S. W. 838 ] ; Chillicothe v. Brown, 38 Mo. … (Seattle v. Hurst, 50 Wash. 424 , [18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 169, 97 Pac. 454 ]; see, also, Chillicothe v. Brown, 38 Mo. App. 609 .) The writ is discharged and the petitioner remanded.

Dunne v. Independent Order of Foresters

185 Cal. 211 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1921

In Bates v. Coronado B. … And in Savings Bank v.

People v. Supervisors

8 Cal. 58 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

The decision in the case of The People v. … The error in the case of The People v.

Pacific Paving Co. v. Bolton

97 Cal. 8 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1892

The board had no jurisdiction to proceed until the steps required by the statute were taken. … (Him melman v. Danos, 35 Cal. 448 ; Los Angeles v. Waldron, 65 Cal. 284 .) There are some minor points made in appellants’ opening brief, but we do not think they require special notice.

Corning Hospital District v. Superior Court

57 Cal. 2d 488 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1962

(Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U.S. 170, 198 [ 41 S.Ct. 465 , 65 L.Ed. 877 ] ; Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel, 258 U.S. 242, 249 [ 42 S.Ct. 289 , 66 L.Ed. 595 ].) In Brown v. … In the present case a claim was duly filed with the district and was rejected. 5 The statute held invalid in Brown 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 ].)

In Re Collins

198 Cal. 508 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1926

Code, sec. 473) had expired, the prison board fixed the term of imprisonment of petitioner at twelve years. … (People v. Sama, supra; In re Lee, 177 Cal. 690 [ 171 Pac. 958 ].)