Case law

Friends of Eel River v. North Coast Ry. Auth.

220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2017

(Quesada, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 308; Brown v. Mortensen (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1052, 1059-1060; see Wyeth v. Levine (2009) 555 U.S. 555, 565; Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001) 533 U.S. 525, 541-542.) … City of Auburn v. U.S. Government (9th Cir. 1998) 154 F.3d 1025; North San Diego County Transit Development Board, Petition (STB, Aug. 19, 2002, No.

Freshour v. Hihn

99 Cal. 443 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1893

(Bolger v. Foss, 65 Cal. 250 ; McRose v. Bottyer, 81 Cal. 125 .) … (See Doughty v. Brill, 3 Keyes, 612 ; Talmage v. Huntting, 29 N. Y. 447 .)

Himmelman v. Danos

35 Cal. 441 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

(Dye v. Dye, 11 Cal. 163 ; People v. Jackson, 24 Cal. 680 .) … (Blanchard v. Beideman, 18 Cal. 262 .)

Kirkwood v. Soto

87 Cal. 394 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1891

For this amount he presented a claim to the board of supervisors, properly itemized and verified, for allowance. … The question now presented for decision does not appear to have been ever passed upon by the supreme court of this state, but a similar question was before the supreme court of Illinois in Briscoe v.

Royer v. Kelly

174 Cal. 70 · California Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1916

(Chaffee v. Browne, 109 Cal. 220 , [ 41 Pac. 1028 ]; National Hardwood Co. v. Sherwood, 165 Cal. 7 , [ 130 Pac. 881 ] ; Stanton v. Weldy, 19 Cal. App. 374 , [ 126 Pac. 175 ].) … (Rosenberg v. Ford, 85 Cal. 612 , [ 24 Pac. 779 ]; Sullivan v. Sullivan, 99 Cal. 193 , [33 Pac. 862]; Chaffee v. Browne, 109 Cal. 220 , [ 41 Pac. 1028 ].) Under the first agreement Royer was to act as Mrs.

Bank of Healdsburg v. Bailhache

65 Cal. 327 · California Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1884

Crowley v. Genesee M. Co. 55 Cal. 275 ; McKiernan v. Lenzen, 56 Cal. 61 ; Seeley v. San Jose M. & L. Co. 59 Cal. 22 , and Shaver v. Bear River & A. W. M. Co. 10 Cal. 400 , are not in conflict with this conclusion. … Power to do such acts must be conferred by the board of directors. (Gashwiler v. Willis, 33 Cal. 11 Blen v. Bear River Co. 20 Cal. 602 .) Judgment affirmed; McKinstry, J., and Ross, J., concurred.

Bluestein v. State Bar

13 Cal. 3d 162 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1974

The assertion does not sustain petitioner’s burden of showing that the board’s action is erroneous or unlawful. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6083, subd. (c); cf. Black v. … (See Abeles v.

People v. Gallego

52 Cal. 3d 115 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1990

(People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 446-448 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P2d 1135 ].) 6. … (See Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d 432, 460.) 19.

Gray v. Lawlor

151 Cal. 352 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1907

W. 693 ] ; Albright v. Warkington, 31 Kan. 442 , [ 2 Pac. 614 ] ; Kinney v. O’Bannon, 6 Bush, 692 ; McLean v. McLean, 84 N. C. 366 ; Sattelee v. Grubb, 38 Kan. 234 , [ 16 Pac. 475 ] ; Brown v. … Brown, 86 Tenn. 277 , [ 6 S. W. 869 , 7 S. W. 640 ] ; Snow v. Hawpe, 22 Tex. 168 ; Lyons v. Robbins, 46 Ill. 276 .

Western Metal Supply Co. v. Pillsbury

172 Cal. 407 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1916

As was said in State v. … rather than judicial powers. ( Borgnis v.

Benson v. State Bar

5 Cal. 3d 382 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1971

(See Demain v. State Bar, 3 Cal.3d 381, 387 (5) [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 420 , 475 P.2d 652 ].) … (See, e.g., Tardiff v. State Bar, 3 Cal.3d 903 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 301 , 479 P.2d 661 ].)

Urbano v. State Bar

19 Cal. 3d 16 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1977

The instant proceeding, however, is not a criminal one (Yokozeki v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 436, 447 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 602 , 521 P.2d 858 ]; Black v. … It is the board’s recommendation that is accorded greater weight, and Urbano has not sustained his burden of showing that the recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. {Toll v.

California Highway Commission v. Riley

192 Cal. 97 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1923

Y. 109 ; People v. Stephens, 71 N. Y. 549 , and Chapman v. … (People v. Murphy, 20 Cal. App. 398 [ 129 Pac. 603 ]; Devlin v. Donnelly, 20 Cal. App. 495 [ 129 Pac. 607 ].)

Wells v. State Bar

15 Cal. 3d 367 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1975

(Yokozeki v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 436, 443-444 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 602 , 521 P.2d 858 ]; Taylor v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 424, 429 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 478 , 521 P.2d 470 ].) … (Bernstein v. State Bar (1972) 6 Cal.3d 909, 919 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 495 P.2d 1289 ].)

Fawkes v. City of Burbank

188 Cal. 399 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1922

In Wiedwald v. … (Boyne v. Ryan, 100 Cal. 267 [ 34 Pac. 707 ]; Wilson v. Blake, 169 Cal. 454 [Ann Cas. 1916D, 205, 147 Pac. 129 ]; Board v. San Diego, 128 Cal. 369 [ 60 Pac. 976 ]; People v. Murphy, 20 Cal.

Stratmore v. State Bar

14 Cal. 3d 887 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1975

'Following evidentiary hearings both the local committee and Board of Governors of the State Bar (hereafter called the board) determined that the evidence sustained the foregoing charge. … As noted in Alkow v.

Martin v. Szeto

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 687 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 2004

WE CONCUR: GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, CHIN, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ. … (Brent Barnhart and Beth Meador, ACLU Legislative Advocates, letter to Governor Edmund Brown, Sept. 23, 1981, pp. 1-2.) [7] Contradicting the legislative history, dictum in Planned Protective Services v.

City & County San Francisco v. Certain Real Estate

42 Cal. 513 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1872

(Stoddard v. Treadwell, 29 Cal. 282 ; Sleeper v. Kelly, 22 Cal. 456 ; Coryell v. Cain, 16 Cal. 572 ; Brotherton v. Hart, 11 Cal. 405 ; Imley v. Beard, 6 Cal. 666 .) … This was done, and it is too late now to inquire whether the Board strictly pursued its original authority in its mode of initiating the work.

Lambert v. Haskell

80 Cal. 611 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1889

Brooks, 38 Cal. 603 ; Joseph v. Holt, 37 Cal. 253 ; Hallock v. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 175 ; Wills v. Kempt, 17 Cal. 98 .) In Joseph v. … (Terre Haute v. Hudnut, 120 Ind. 550 et seq.; Allison v. Chandler, 11 Mich. 558 et seq.; Chapman v. Kirby, 49 Ill. 219 ; Simmons v. Brown, 5 R. I. 299; 73 Am. Dec. 66 ; Gibson v. Fisher, 68 Iowa, 30 ; Goebel v.

Thompson v. City of San Diego

43 Cal. 3d 1033 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1987

(See, e.g., Dickey v. Retirement Board (1976) 16 Cal.3d 745, 748-749 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 289 , 548 P.2d 689 ]; Shelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 194, 206-207 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 539 P.2d 774 ].) … In view of the fiduciary relationship between the retirement board and plaintiff (see, e.g., Hittle v.