Case law

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.

Whiting Finance Co. v. Hopkins

199 Cal. 428 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1926

The following are typical cases: Griffin v. People, 184 Ill. 275 [ 56 N. E. 397 ]; In re Spurgeon, 72: Ind. App. 580 [ 126 N. E. 238 ]; Gish v. Shaver, 140 Ky. 647 [ 131 S. W. 515 ]; Williams v. … In the case of San Francisco 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 ].)

People v. Ashbury

44 Cal. 616 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

Clerk of the *618 Board delivered the assessment book to the Auditor. … In People v.

People v. Martinez

83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 533 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1999

BROWN, J. … Our long-standing precedents (see, e.g., People v. Brown (1974) 11 Cal.3d 784 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 523 P.2d 226 and People v.

County Sanitation District No. 4 v. Payne

197 Cal. 448 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1925

(Donnelly v. Tillman, 47 Cal. 41 ; Napa v. Easterby, 61 Cal. 509 ; Wade on Notice, secs. 1106, 1108, 1123.) … (See Derby v. Modesto, 104 Cal. 523 [ 38 Pac. 900 ].) The ordinance was preceded by its title, which clearly described its purport.

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.

McCroskey v. Ladd

3 Cal. Unrep. 433 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1891

The authority of the officers to execute the deed must affirmatively appear: Kahn v. Supervisors, 79 Cal. 399 , 21 Pac. 849 ; Koehler v. Iron Co., 2 Black, 715 . … Proof of the absence of the corporate seal cast upon the plaintiff the burden of showing that the president and secretary were authorized by the board of directors to execute and deliver the deed: Koehler v.

Watenpaugh v. State Teacher's Retirement System

51 Cal. 2d 675 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1959

(Gray v. Southern Pac. Co., 23 Cal.2d 632, 644 [ 145 P.2d 561 ] ; Ralph v. Anderson, 187 Cal. 45, 49 [200 P. 940]; Scholey v. Steele, 59 Cal.App.2d 402, 404 [ 138 P.2d 733 ] ; Hansen v. … Language in Wicktor v. County of Los Angeles, 141 Cal.App.2d 592 , 596 et seq. [ 297 P.2d 115 ], Nichols v. Board of Retirement, 121 Cal.App.2d 176, 180 [ 262 P.2d 862 ], and Shaw v.

Norland v. Gould

200 Cal. 706 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1927

The case of Naphtaly v. Rovegno, 130 Cal. 639 [ 63 Pac. 66, 621 ], presents a similar point and it was there held that the appellant was not entitled to a new trial. … A case analogous in principle to the instant case is found in Allred v.

Taylor v. Palmer

31 Cal. 240 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

(Cochran v. Collins, supra.) … (Emery v. Bradford, 39 Cal. 75.) VI.

Welsh v. Bramlet

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

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

In Re Wilson

196 Cal. 515 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1925

(Snell v. Bradbury, 139 Cal. 379 [ 73 Pac. 150 ] ; People v. Soto, 49 Cal. 67, 70 .) … As said in Pillsbury v.

Pickering v. State Bar

24 Cal. 2d 141 · California Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1944

Pickering has challenged the recommendation of the Board of Governors of The State Bar in a disciplinary action. … (Rohe v. State Bar, 17 Cal.2d 445 [ 110 P.2d 389 ] ; Geibel v. State Bar, 14 Cal.2d 144 [ 93 P.2d 97 ]; and Tapley v. State Bar, 8 Cal.2d 167 [ 64 P.2d 404 ].) It is ordered that George A.

Lee v. State Bar

2 Cal. 3d 927 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1970

The board eliminated this finding. … The issue in Lee v.

Mann v. Tracy

185 Cal. 272 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1921

Such boards are vested with a high discretion and its abuse must appear very clearly before the courts will interfere.” (See, also, Pratt v. Rosenthal, 181 Cal. 158 , [ 183 Pac. 544 ].) … The determination of facts and the propriety of action of administrative boards is not a judicial function. (Qu inchard v. Board of Trustees, 113 Cal. 664 , [45 Pac. 856]; People v.

Upper San Joaquin Irrigating Canal Co. v. Roach

78 Cal. 552 · California Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1889

(Gifford v. Carvill, 29 Cal. 589 ; Fitz v. Bynum, 55 Cal. 459 .) It is contended, in the next place, that the plaintiff gave to the defendant a release of the obligation. … What is claimed to constitute a release consists in the following: At a meeting of the plaintiff’s board of directors the following resolution was passed, viz.:— “Resolved, That in the opinion of this board the note of William