Case law

Sixth District Agricultural Ass'n v. Wright

154 Cal. 119 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1908

This matter was exhaustively discussed and decided in a very recent case (People etc. v. San Joaquin etc. Assoc., 151 Cal. 797 , [ 91 Pac. 740 ].) … (See People etc. v. Kerber, 152 Cal. 731 , [ 93 Pac. 78 ], and cases there cited.)

La Mesa, Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District v. Halley

197 Cal. 50 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1925

In the case of Spurrier v. Neumiller, 37 Cal. … This contention has no merit (Hewitt v. Pleasant Talley Irr. Dist., 124 Cal. 186 [ 56 Pac. 893 ]; South Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co., 152 Cal. 579 [ 93 Pac. 490 ]; Byington v. Sacramento Talley etc.

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 ].)

Powell v. California Department of Employment

63 Cal. 2d 103 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1965

(See Ackerson v. Western Union Tel. Co., 234 Minn 271 [ 48 N.W.2d 338, 343 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1063 ]; Western Electric Co. v. Hussey, 35 N.J. 250 [ 172 A.2d 645, 650-651 ] ; Balding v. … Co., Inc. v. California Unem *108 ployment Insurance Appeals Board, Los Angeles Superior Court No. 695196), the trial court issued its writ of mandate setting aside the award of compensation.

Swamp Land District No. 121 v. Haggin

64 Cal. 204 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1883

No. 3 v. Kennedy, 58 Cal. 124 .) … In Reclamation Disirict No. 3 v.

Benson v. City of Los Angeles

60 Cal. 2d 355 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1963

(See Sweesy v. Los Angeles etc. Retirement Board, 17 Cal.2d 356, 362 [ 110 P.2d 37 ]; Clarke v. Police etc. Ins. Board, 123 Cal. 24 [ 55 P. 576 ] ; Jordan v. Retirement Board, 35 Cal.App.2d 653 [ 96 P.2d 973 ].) … (Packer v. Board of Retirement, supra, 35 Cal.2d 212, 217 .)

Norris v. Farmers' & Teamsters' Co.

6 Cal. 590 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

Long v. Beard & Merrill, 3 Murphy’s Rep.; Harrell et al. v. Ellsworth, 17 Ala. Rep., 584 . How can the ferry of defendants be more public than it is ? … Rep., 576 ; Conner v. Paxon, 1 Blackf. R., 68.

People v. Western Air Lines, Inc.

42 Cal. 2d 621 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1954

Assn. v. Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers, 22 Cal.2d 104,107, 108 [ 136 P.2d 785 ] ; Southern Calif. Edison Co. v. Railroad Com., supra, 6 Cal.2d 737, 747 ; People v. … The board apparently did not have sufficient interest to intervene. The commission states that in more recent litigation in which the board did intervene (United Air Lines v. Pub. Util.

Hempy v. Public Utilities Commission

56 Cal. 2d 214 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1961

Bank v. Peterson, 5 Cal.2d 601 [ 55 P.2d 867 ]; Sanderson v. McIntosh, 65 Cal. 36 [ 2 P. 728 ].) … Co. v. Public Util. Com., 51 Cal.2d 478, 488 [ 334 P.2d 887 ]; Ashley v. Railroad Com., 188 Cal. 234, 236 [204 P. 825]; Atchison etc. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Com., 173 Cal. 577, 582 [ 160 P. 828 , 2 A.L.R 975]; Hanlon v.

People v. Farmer

47 Cal. 3d 888 · California Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1989

{People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 542 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 [ 709 P.2d 440 ].) … (People v. Brown, supra, at p. 544, fn. 17.)

Mackay v. City & County of San Francisco

113 Cal. 392 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1896

(Goldgart v. People, 106 Ill. 25 .) The case of Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. … In De Fremery v.

Waterman v. State Bar

8 Cal. 2d 17 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1936

(Marsh v. State Bar, 210 Cal. 303 [ 291 Pac. 583 ].) … (Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal. (2d) 75 [ 39 Pac. (2d) 403 ].)

City of Long Beach v. Payne

3 Cal. 2d 184 · California Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1935

Co. v. Oklahoma City, 12 Okl. 82 [ 69 Pac. 1050, 1054 ] ; Union Pacific R. R. v. Colfax County Commrs., 4 Neb. 450, 456 ; Board of Shelby County Commrs. v. Castetter, 7 Ind. App. 309 [ 33 N. E. 986 , 34 N. E. 687 ]. … Ry. v. Minneapolis, 232 U. S. 430, 442 [34 Sup. Ct. 400, 58 L.

Emslie v. State Bar

11 Cal. 3d 210 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1974

(See DiGenova v. State Board of Education (1962) 57 Cal.2d 167, 178 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 367 P.2d 865 ].) … (Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners (1973) 9 Cal.3d 356 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 473 , 508 P.2d 1121 ].)

Aydelotte v. State Bar of California

209 Cal. 737 · California Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1930

(In re Bar Assn. v. Sullivan, 185 Cal. 621 [ 198 Pac. 7 ].) … Upon such recommendation being considered by the Board of Governors, petitioner contended that he had not received notice of the hearing, and upon the showing made by him the Board of Governors ordered the matter referred

El Dorado Irrigation District v. Browne

216 Cal. 269 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1932

A brief examination of the statute and the cases will show that the board had power to make the changes. The most important decision is Board of Directors of Modesto Irr. Dist. v. … In Cullen v.

Trumpler v. Trumpler

123 Cal. 248 · California Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1899

(Plummer v. Brown, 64 Cal. 429 ; People v. Mullan, 65 Cal. 396 .)” The same general principle was decided in Plummer v. Brown, supra. There is nothing in the cases cited by respondent in conflict with these views. … In Leonis v.

Neblett v. State Bar

17 Cal. 2d 77 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1941

In Golden v. … (People v. Pustau, 39 Cal. App. (2d) 407 [ 103 Pac. (2d) 224 )]. Because of this, the committee later and wisely abandoned him and its findings frankly exclude his testimony from all consideration.

People v. Seeley

137 Cal. 13 · California Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1902

, the adoption of any textbook, or the making of any contract to which the board of education of which he is a member shall be a party, or the acceptance by any member of a board of education or board of school trustees of … (People v. Edson, 68 Cal. 550 ; People v.

Schmitt v. City of San Francisco

100 Cal. 302 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1893

In Archer v. … In Cincinnati v.