Case law

Treanor v. Houghton

103 Cal. 53 · California Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1894

Dougherty v. Hitchcock, 35 Cal. 512 ; City of Stockton v. Whitmore, 50 Cal. 554 ; Richardson v. Heydenfeldt, 46 Cal. 68 ; and People v. … The question arises, bad the board the power to thus let separate contracts? In Dougherty 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

Matter of Carter

141 Cal. 316 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1903

(State v. Donovan, 89 Me. 451 ; Andrews v. Board, 94 Me. 76 ; State v. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 383 ; 1 McGregor v. Supervisors, 37 Mich. 389 ; Merrick v. Board, 41 Mich. 630 ; Hayden v. Memphis, 100 Tenn. 582 ; State v. … Hawkins, 44 Ohio St. 98 ; Dongan v. District Court, 6 Colo. 534 ; Dakota v. Cox, 6 Dak. 510 ; Trimble v. People, 19 Colo. 196 ; 1 Wilson v. People, 90 Ill. 204 ; People v. Higgins, 15 Ill. 110 ; State v.

Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District

46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 41 · California Supreme Court · Jul 20, 2006

(See Western States Petroleum Assn. v. … Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 566-567 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ] [adjudicatory decisions of the California Air Resources Board reviewable by administrative mandamus]; McGill 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.

Lower Kings River Reclamation District No. 531 v. McCullah

124 Cal. 175 · California Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1899

(Reamer v. Nesmith, 34 Cal. 624 ; Irving v. Cunningham, 66 Cal. 15 ; Helm v. Wilson, 76 Cal. 476 .) … Wickersham v.

Silva v. Garcia

65 Cal. 591 · California Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1884

(Hicks v. Michael, 15 Cal. 115 ; Merced Mining Company v. Fremont, 7 Cal. 319 ; More v. Massini, 32 Cal. 590 .) It was clearly matter for equitable interference by the court. … For this reason it is claimed that the order of the board was void for want of jurisdiction. “ In such a proceeding the person whose rights are to be affected against his will must have notice.” (Cruger v.

Clear Lake Water Works Co. v. Lake County

45 Cal. 90 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

The Court sustained a demurrer to the complaint upon the ground that it was not alleged therein that the claim for damages had been presented to the Board of Supervisors and disallowed. … In our opinion the Act has created a new right and provided a new remedy therefor, which is complete in itself and does not require presentation to the Board. (Reed v. Omnibus R. R. Co., 33 Cal. 212 .)

Price v. County of Sacramento

6 Cal. 254 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

The Court below relies on the decision of the Superior Court of New York, in the case of Brady v. The Supervisors of New York, 2 Sandford’s Reports. … The writ of mandamus lies to compel any inferior board or tribunal to proceed and act, where such action is a legal duty, but not to direct such action.

Lee v. State Bar

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

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

Controversy Between California Toll Bridge Authority & City & County of San Francisco v. Wentworth

212 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1931

A similar holding by the Supreme Court of North Carolina is found in the case of Brockenbrough v. Board of Water Commrs., 134 N. C. 1 [ 46 S. E. 28 ]. … (Bates v. State Bridge Com., supra.)

Gallup v. Sparks-Mundo Engineering Co.

43 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1954

Brown, the owner of the ambulance, undertakes to recover damages for harm done to that vehicle. … See Salmon v.

Evans v. Sparks

170 Cal. 532 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1915

-It is perfectly true, as appellants insist, that conveyance of property to a kinsman is not, in itself, a badge of fraud (Gray v. … Brown. *535 This sum was secured by a bond executed by the Metropolitan Surety Company. In June, 1908, H. S. Sparks had attempted to realize on this bond, but both Brown and the Surety Company had refused payment.

County of Contra Costa v. Lasky

43 Cal. 2d 506 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1954

(County of Lake v. Forbes, 42 Cal.App.2d 744 [ 109 P.2d 972 ] ; County of Los Angeles v. Lane, 113 Cal.App.2d 476 [ 248 P.2d 479 ] ; County of Los Angeles v. La Fuente, 20 Cal.2d 870 [ 129 P.2d 378 ].) … Seemingly to the contrary are Garcia v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.2d 31 [ 113 P.2d 470 ], and Kelley v. State Board of Sodal Welfare, 82 Cal.App.2d 627 [ 186 P.2d 429 ].)

People v. Randle

28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 2005

(See People v. … (See conc. opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 1010; People v. Wright (2005) 35 Cal.4th 964, 985-986 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 708 , 111 P.3d 973 ] (conc. opn. of Brown, J.).)

Greenwood v. Morrison

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

In Miller v. … In Girvin v.

Palmquist v. State Bar

43 Cal. 2d 428 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1954

The board’s eight to five vote publicly reproving petitioner followed. … The burden of showing that the board’s action was incorrect is upon petitioner, however. (Choate v. State Bar (1953), 41 Cal.2d 399, 405 [ 260 P.2d 609, 612 ].)

People v. Lasko

96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 441 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 2000

The boys grabbed makeshift weapons (a tire iron, a bottle, a pool cue, and a board) and went to the door of the house. … J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Buford v. Florin Fruit Growers' Assn.

210 Cal. 84 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1930

(Hood River Orchard Co. v. Stone, 97 Or. 158 [ 191 Pac. 662 , 666 et seq].) … .) *92 In Morrison v.

Spires v. City of Los Angeles

150 Cal. 64 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1906

that application has been made to such board of directors to provide rooms therein for the board of education. … As far as the board of directors is concerned, this would seem permissible on account of their control of the library. But as to the board of education this cannot be done.