Case law

Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. Scarborough

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

Co. v. … Co. 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 ].)

In Re Tucker

5 Cal. 3d 171 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1971

California Adult Authority, supra, 395 F.2d 446, 450 (concurring opn. of Browning, J.). [36] See " Goldsmith v. … United States Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 (1926) (right of a certified public accountant to practice before the Board of Tax Appeals); Hornsby 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.

White v. Davis

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 648 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 2003

Brown, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1283 ). (White v. Davis I, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 197, 212-216 .) … (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d [432,] 447 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 574 , 777 P.2d 610 ].)” (White 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 .)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

People v. Floyd

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 2003

(See, e.g., People v. … (People v. Rhoads *195 (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 56, 60 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 266 ]; see Boyll v. State Personnel Board (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1073-1074 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 717 ].)

Minturn v. Fisher

4 Cal. 35 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1854

(See Harker v. Anderson, 21 Wend. 372 , and the cases there cited.) … (See Brown v. Lusk, 4 Yerg. 210 ) and the drawer entitled to three days’ grace and notice of non-payment. From this it follows, that the presentation, and, consequently, the commencement of the action, were premature.

MacK v. State Bar

2 Cal. 3d 440 · California Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1970

The burden is on petitioner to show that the disciplinary board’s recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Corn v. State Bar, 68 Cal.2d 461, 462 [1] [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 439 P.2d 313 ]; McKinney v. … (Eschwig v. State Bar, 1 Cal.3d 8, 18-19 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 459 P.2d 904 ].) In Bruns v.

In Re Gehring

22 Cal. 2d 708 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1943

We may appropriately repeat here what we said in Spears v. … (See Kepler v. State Bar, 216 Cal. 52, 55 [ 13 P.2d 509 ].) From what has been said it appears that the recommendation of the Board of Governors against the readmission of petitioner is supported by the evidence.

Spring Valley Water Works v. City and County of San Francisco

52 Cal. 111 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

In Fox v. Board of Supervisors, 49 Cal. 563 , the Supreme Court issued the writ of prohibition to the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County, to prohibit them from calling an election, which is not a judicial act. … (Robinson v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento, 16 Cal. 208 ; People v. Supervisors of El Dorado *114 County, 8 Cal. 58 ; Murray v. Supervisors of Mariposa County, 23 Cal. 494 ; Miller v.

Morse v. Wilson

138 Cal. 558 · California Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1903

Proc., sec. 656; Riverside Water Co. v. Gage, 108 Cal. 240 ; Brison v. Brison, 90 Cal. 323 .) … that a separate boarding account was unnecessary.

People v. Avena

13 Cal. 4th 394 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1996

(People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 446-449; see People v. Wright, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 438 [applying the Brown “reasonable possibility” standard].) … Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ] (hereafter Brown) revd. on another issue, California v. Brown, supra, 479 U.S. 538 ; CALJIC No. 8.84.1 (4th ed. 1979); § 190.3.)

People v. Young

108 Cal. 8 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1895

In State v. Greenman, 23 Minn. 209 , there appeared to be a doubt as to the identity of the list. 4. … (People v.

People v. Baldwin

117 Cal. 244 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1897

The ordinance was produced from the regular record book of the board, with the usual recitals as to its adoption, and it appeared that the board had ever since its adoption acted in pursuance of its provisions; there was … (Merced Co. v. Fleming, 111 Cal. 46.) The further ground of the challenge that the order of court designating the number of jurors to be selected by the board was not signed by the judge is without merit.