Case law

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.

Hoover v. Galbraith

7 Cal. 3d 519 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1972

In Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 427, 431 [ 116 P.2d 37 , 136 A.L.R. 800 ], and Skaggs v. … the state board of a wrongfully revoked teaching credential, and an action could then be maintained by the terminated teacher against the local board for termination which had been based solely upon the state board revocation

County of Monterey v. Industrial Accident Commission

199 Cal. 221 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1926

Brown v. Appleby, 139 Wis. 195 [ 120 N. W. 861 ]; McCumber v. Waukesha County, 91 Wis. 442 [ 65 N. W. 51 ]; 3 Cyc. 877; 2 R. C. L. 491, section 52.) … This basis of computation is also approved in Millard County v.

Tuohy v. Chase

30 Cal. 524 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1866

.: It is provided in the second section of the Act “to create a Board of Supervisors in the counties of this State and to define their duties and powers,” passed March 20th, 1855, (Acts of 1855, p. 51,) that “ the Board of … (People *527 v. Allen, 6 Wend. 486 ; People v. Peck, 11 Wend. 604 ; Merchant v. Langworthy, 6 Hill, 645 ; Ex parte Heath v. Roome, 3 Hill, 42 .) Judgment affirmed.

Luce v. City of San Diego

198 Cal. 405 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1926

In the early case of Fall v. … In the case of Henne v.

Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. McKenzie

135 Cal. 497 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1902

(McBean v. … In Weaver v.

Schieffery v. Tapia

68 Cal. 184 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1885

Brown, and on the 17th of October, 1881, Brown conveyed to plaintiff. The above constitutes plaintiff’s chain of title. … (Terry v. Megerle, 24 Cal. 627 ; People v. Stratton, 25 Cal. 242 ; Page v. Hobbs, 27 Cal. 483 ; Carder v. Baxter, 28 Cal. 99 ; Tyler v. Green, 28 Cal. 408 ; Megerle v. Ashe, 33 Cal. 90 .)

Haughawout v. Percival

161 Cal. 491 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1911

(Himmelmann v. Cahn, 49 Cal. 285 ; Brooks v. Satterlee, 49 Cal. 289 ; Dehail v. Morford, 95 Cal. 457 , [ 30 Pac. 593 ].) … (Kirkbride v. Lafayette Co., 108 U. S. 211 , [ 27 L. Ed. 705 , 2 Sup. Ct. 501]; Barrett v. Schuyler Co., 44 Mo. 202 .)

Shakespear v. Smith

77 Cal. 638 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1888

(San Diego v. S. D. & L. A. R. R. Co., 44 Cal. 111 ; Andrews v. Pratt, 44 Cal. 309 ; Pickett v. School District, 25 Wis. 552; 3 Am. Rep. 105 .) … (Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 256 ; People v. Gray, 23 Cal. 126 ; Martin v. San Francisco, 23 Cal. 286 ; Kellor v. Hicks, 22 Cal. 457 ; Dana v. City of San Francisco, 19 Cal. 486 ; People v.

McCarthy v. Wilson

146 Cal. 323 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1905

(See Maddux v. Walthall, 141 Cal. 412, 414 , and cases there cited; Kincaid v. Reid, 142 Cal. 88 ; Merkley v. Trainor, 142 Cal. 265 ; McMenomy v. Ruch, 142 Cal. 77 ; Treanor v. Williams, 145 Cal. 315 .) … (See Whipley v. McKune, 12 Cal. 352 ; People v. Prewett, 124 Cal. 13 .)

McCann v. Pennie

100 Cal. 547 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1893

In Janin v. … (Siboni v.

Allen v. State Bar

20 Cal. 3d 172 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1977

The findings here are reinforced by their unanimous adoption by the board following independent review of the record. (See Magee v. State Bar, supra, 13 Cal.3d 700, 708 .) … Allen has failed to overcome the findings of the board. While the evidence justifies disbarment, we consider any mitigating circumstances revealed by the record or Allen. (Yokozeki v.

Pralus v. Jefferson Gold & Silver Mining Co.

34 Cal. 558 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

(Ritchie v. Dorland, 6 Cal. 33; Curtis v. Sutter, 15 Cal. 259 ; San Francisco v. Beideman, 17 Cal. 443 ; Van Winkle v. Hinckle, 21 Cal. 343 ; Rico v. Spence, 21 Cal. 504 ; Lyle v. Rollins, 25 Cal. 437 .) … defendant “ have been in the quiet, peaceable and undisturbed possession of said mining ground for the last six years and more, and have held and worked the same in accordance with the mining rules and regulations of said Brown

In Re Hanley

13 Cal. 3d 448 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1975

Petitioner has the burden of showing that the Board’s recommendation is erroneous or unlawful [citations].” (Yokozeki v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 436, 450 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 602 , 521 P.2d 858 ].) … Toll v.

Nevada School District v. Shoecraft

88 Cal. 372 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1891

The point relied on by appellant is, that said act of March 25,1874, under which the board of education of Nevada City has been acting for more than sixteen years, is unconstitutional and totally void. … There was nothing in the old constitution which prevented special legislation (Meade v.

In re the Guardianship & Estate of Eschrich

85 Cal. 98 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1890

’ board for Albert. … (Estate of Stott, 52 Cal. 403 ; Estate of Clark, 53 Cal. 355 ; Merrifield v. Longmire, 66 Cal. 180 .)

Estate of Sutro

155 Cal. 727 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1909

In Mason v. … (Spence v. Widney, (Cal.) 46 P. 466 , in which a rehearing was granted, but not on this point; Attorney-General v. Hewer, *Page 738 2 Vern, 387; Attorney-General v. Newcomb, 14 Ves. Jr. 1; Attorney-General v.

L. W. Blinn Lumber Co. v. County of Los Angeles

216 Cal. 474 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1932

On this subject the case of Hammond Lumber Co. v. … Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 162 Cal. 164, 166 [9 A. L. R. 1277, 121 Pac. 384 ]; Miller & Lux, Inc., v. Richardson, 182 Cal. 115, 128 [ 187 Pac. 411 ]; Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v.