Case law

Taylor v. Palmer

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

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

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

People v. Cox

53 Cal. 3d 618 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1991

(See People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 540 .) … (See generally People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 538-544.)

Butt v. State of California

4 Cal. 4th 668 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1992

Serrano I cited with approval Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board (E.D.La. 1961) 197 F.Supp. 649 . … (E.g., Crawford v. Board of Education, supra, 17 Cal.3d 280, 308 .)

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 ].)

Bunny's Waffle Shop, Inc. v. California Employment Commission

24 Cal. 2d 735 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1944

Barnes v. … Pesnell, 29 Ala.App. 528 [ 199 So. 720 ]; Ex parte Pesnell, 240 Ala. 457 [ 199 So. 726 ]; Walter Bledsoe Coal Co. v. Review Board,-Ind. - [ 46 N.E.2d 477 ]; see Sandoval v.

In re Dedman

17 Cal. 3d 229 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1976

Although we retain the final word as to the discipline to be imposed (Glickman v. State Bar (1973) 9 Cal.3d 179, 184 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 507 P.2d 593 ]), the recommendation of the board is given great weight. … (Bradpiece v. State Bar, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 748; Benson v. State Bar (1971) 5 Cal.3d 382, 388 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 486 P.2d 1230 ]; Yokozeki v.

Wills v. Austin

53 Cal. 152 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1878

That section was under review by this Court in the case of Houghton v. … The rule applicable to this point is forcibly stated by Chief Justice Shaw in Warren v.

People v. Boyles

45 Cal. 2d 652 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1955

In People v. … United States, 333 U.S. 10, 15 [ 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 ]; In re Dixon, 41 *656 Cal.2d 756, 761-762 [ 264 P.2d 513 ]; cf., People v. Brown, ante, p. 640 [ 290 P.2d 528 ].)

LaFranchi v. City of Santa Rosa

8 Cal. 2d 331 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1937

In Whitney v. Watson, 85 N. H. 238 [ 157 Atl. 78 ], the board of health refused to grant a license to sell dairy products to a producer whose plant was outside the city limits. … What are the reasonable limits under all the conditions is a question for the board, subject to revision by the court if not fixed by the exercise of a reasonable discretion. ” In State v.

Roberts v. Colyear

179 Cal. 669 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1919

(Savings & Loan Soc. v. Deering, 66 Cal. 281 , [ 5 Pac. 353 ]; Carey v. Brown, 62 Cal. 373 ; Mersfelder v. Spring, 139 Cal. 593 , [ 73 Pac. 452 ].) … (Bernal v. Hovious, 17 Cal. 541 , [79 Am. Dec. 147]; Schneider v. Brown, 85 Cal. 205 , [ 24 Pac. 715 ].)

Petersen v. the State Bar

16 Cal. 2d 57 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1940

(Kennedy v. State Bar, 13 Cal. (2d) 236 [ 88 Pac. (2d) 920 ].) … Petitioner had ample notice of and opportunity to obtain counsel for the hearing before the board of governors. No error appears in the action of the board in refusing a continuance beyond October 27, 1939.

Greenwood v. Morrison

128 Cal. 350 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1900

In Miller v. … In Girvin 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.

Smith v. Martin

135 Cal. 247 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1901

(Moore v. Boyd, 74 Cal. 167 ; Bills v. Silver King Mining Co., 106 Cal. 9 ; Robertson v. Burrell, 110 Cal. 568 ; Lady Washington C. Co. v. Wood, 113 Cal. 482 ; Lee v. … McClelland, 120 Cal. 147 ; Archer v. *255 Freeman, 124 Cal. 528 ; Marks v. Evans (Cal., Aug. 2, 1900), 62 Pac. Rep. 76 ; Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 135 .)

Merchants National Bank v. Escondido Irrigation District

144 Cal. 329 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1904

And as additional security for the payment of all said bonds, and interest thereon, the board of directors shall have power to pledge, by mortgage, trust-deed, or othenvise, all property of the district *333 situate within … Code, *334 sec. 284; Board of Education v. Board of Trustees etc., 129 Cal. 604 ; Hewes v. Ewing, 93 Cal. 417 ; Irrigation Dist. v.

Clemons v. City of Los Angeles

36 Cal. 2d 95 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1950

(Miller v. Board of Public Works, supra, 195 Cal. 477, 487-488 .) … Board of Public Works, supra; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, supra, 195 Cal. 497 .)

McKannay v. Horton

151 Cal. 711 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1907

In Morton v. … (People v. Fleming, 100 Cal. 540 , [ 38 Am. St. Rep. 310 , 35 Pac. 163 ] ; People v. Brite, 55 Cal. 79 .) *718 On the thirteenth day of June, 1907, the verdict of guilty in People v.

McFarland v. Holcomb

123 Cal. 84 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1898

(Fisher v. Pyne, 1 Man. & G. 265, note.) … (Wise v. Williams, 72 Cal. 544 ; Pleasant v. Samuels, supra.) At the time of filing their demurrer the defendants moved the court that the plaintiff make her complaint more definite and certain.