Case law

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.

Crownover v. Musick

9 Cal. 3d 405 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1973

(Daniel v. Board of Police Commissioners, supra, 190 Cal.App.2d at p. 571 .) … Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 555 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966).” (Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., supra, 393 U.S. 503, 505-506 , italics added.) Similarly in Brown v.

County of Los Angeles v. Riley

20 Cal. 2d 652 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1942

Jur. 578; Miller v. Pillsbury, 164 Cal. 199 , [ 128 Pac. 327 ; Ann. Cas. 1914B, 886]; State of California v. Royal Consolidated Mining Co., 187 Cal. 343 [ 202 Pac. 133 ].) … Jur. 583; Board of Directors v. Nye, 8 Cal. App. 527 [ 97 Pac. 208 ]; Kingsbury v. Nye, 9 Cal. App. 574 [ 99 Pac. 985 ]; U’Ren v. State Board of Control, 31 Cal. App. 6 [ 159 Pac. 615 ].)

Providence Tool Co. v. Prader

32 Cal. 634 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

(Wallace v. Eldredge, 27 Cal. 497 ; Glidden v. Packard, 28 Cal. 651 ; Bond v. Pacheco, 30 Cal. 533 .) … (Brown v. Williams, 4 Wend. 368 ; Smith v. Hicks, 5 Wend. 51 ; Brown v. Hodgson, 4 Taunt. 189; Graham’s Practice, 515.) In Goodrich v.

People v. Gordon

50 Cal. 3d 1223 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1990

Brown of the Riverside Police Department. At Brown’s request, she discussed the lineups and her written comment about the third. … Defendant also argues that Sergeant Brown’s remark was unduly suggestive “retroactively.”

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.

Tammen v. County of San Diego

66 Cal. 2d 468 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1967

In Lohman v. … As the court said in Morrill v.

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. East Bay Municipal Utility District

20 Cal. 3d 327 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1977

(Modesto Properties Co. v. State Water Rights Board (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 856, 860 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 226 ].) … Code, § 174; Johnson Rancho County Water Dist. v. State Water Rights Board (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 863, 867 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 89 ].)

Mulville v. City of San Diego

183 Cal. 734 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1920

(Hyatt v. Williams, 148 Cal. 585, 587 , [ 84 Pac. 41 ]; South Pasadena v. Pasadena Land etc. … (Eureka v. Diaz, 89 Cal. 467, 469 , [ 26 Pac. 961 ]; Smith v. Union Oil Co., 166 Cal. 217, 224 , [ 135 Pac. 966 ]; Sacramento v. Glann, 14 Cal. App. 780, 789 , [ 113 Pac. 360 ].)

Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. Scarborough

216 Cal. 698 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1932

Co. v. … Co. v.

Himmelmann v. Satterlee

49 Cal. 387 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

It was held in Donnelly v. … order of the Board.

National Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Pacific Fruit Express Co.

11 Cal. 2d 283 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1938

App. (2d) 482 [ 39 Pac. (2d) 829 ]; Rio Grande Oil Co. v. Los Angeles, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 200 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 451 ]; Graham Bros., Inc., v. Los Angeles, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 203 [ 44 Pac. (2d) 452 ]; Roth Drug, Inc., v. … The case of Western Lithograph Co. v. State Board of Equalization, ante, p. 156 [ 78 Pac. (2d) 731 ], reinforced by each of the companion cases of identical title, numbered respectively, S. F. 15915 and S.

Parr-Richmond Industrial Corp. v. Boyd

43 Cal. 2d 157 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1954

of the value of his property to the board. … (See United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U.S. 174, 187 [ 64 S.Ct. 908 , 88 L.Ed. 1209 ]; Gottstein v. Adams, 202 Cal. 581, 584-585 [ 262 P. 314 ]; Los Angeles v.

California Canning Peach Growers v. Harkey

11 Cal. 2d 188 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1938

This resulted, in June of 1935, in the calling of a special election to elect a new board *199 of directors. As a result of that election a majority of the old board was displaced, and a new board elected. … It is also true that the by-laws expressly provided for their amendment by majority vote of the members, and that such by-laws could not be properly amended by resolution of the board of directors. (Noble v.

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.

Monsch v. Pellissier

187 Cal. 790 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1922

This position is predicated -upon the Vrooman Act and acts amendatory thereto, and Martinovich v. … Rep. 55 , 13 Pac. 657]; Spence v.

Simms v. County of Los Angeles

35 Cal. 2d 303 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1950

State Board of Equalization, 12 Cal.2d 127 [ 82 P.2d 422 ].) … (See Trabue Pittman Corp. v. County of Los Angeles, 29 Cal.2d 385, 401 [ 175 P.2d 512 ]; Southern Cal. Tel. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 12 Cal.2d 127, 137 [ 82 P.2d 422 ].)

Union Paving & Contracting Co. v. McGovern

127 Cal. 638 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1900

(Heft v. Payne, 97 Cal. 108 .) … Callender v. Patterson, 66 Cal. 356 , cited by appellant, is inapplicable.

Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.

243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 880 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 2019

"We review de novo the grant or denial of an anti-SLAPP motion." ( Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057 , 1067, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 130 , 393 P.3d 905 .) … Wilcox v.

Kelsey v. Trs. of Nevada

18 Cal. 629 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

(See Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal.) The next objection is, that the act is void because the tax is apportioned according to the assessment roll of the previous year. We see nothing unconstitutional in this. … As to the notice of the meeting of the Board of Equalization, if anything more was necessary than the publication, see Cowell v. Doub ( 12 Cal. 274 ). Judgment affirmed.