Case law

Lindenbaum v. Barbour

213 Cal. 277 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1931

(Keyes v. Hawley, 100 Cal. App. 53 [ 279 Pac. 674 ]; Lipp v. Moon, 100 Cal. App. 618 [ 280 Pac. 710 ]; Enz v. Johns, 112 Cal. App. 1 [ 296 Pac. 115 ]; Couchman v. Smelling, 111 Cal. App. 192 [ 295 Pac. 845 ].) … R 1172, 192 Pac. 442 ], and reaffirmed in Atlas Mixed Mortar Co. v.

Ede v. Cogswell

79 Cal. 278 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1889

The case of German Savings Bank v. County of Franklin, 128 U. S. 526 , cited by the appellants, differs in many respects from the case at bar.” (Oakland Paving Co. v. Barstow, ante, p. 45.) … It seems to give the board of supervisors full discretionary power to order what part should be graded in one or more contracts at a time.

People ex rel. Attorney General v. Provines

34 Cal. 520 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

The first case is that of Burgoyne v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Francisco, 5 Cal. 19 . … So the rule in Burgoyne’s Case was modified so as not to include Boards of Supervisors. The next case is that of The People v.

Monterey Peninsula Airport District v. Mason

19 Cal. 2d 446 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1942

the district to certain “Acquisition and Improvement Bonds, Issue of 1942,” as authorized and directed by resolution of the board. … This was recognized in the case of American River Flood Control District v. Sweet, 214 Cal. 778 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 1030 ], which presented a situation and problem analogous to those here presented.

McColgan v. Jones, Hubbard & Donnell, Inc.

11 Cal. 2d 243 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1938

(Brown v. Sterling Furniture Co., 175 Cal. 563 [ 166 Pac. 322 ]; Commins v. Guaranty Oil Co., 29 Cal. App. 139 [154 Pac. 882]; Henry v. Lingsweiler, 81 Cal. App. 143 [ 253 Pac. 357 ]; Bengel v. Traeger, 100 Cal. … (See, also, the orders in Bengel v. Traeger, supra; Brown v. Sterling Furniture Co., supra; Finch v. Ekstrom, supra.) In Ferris v.

Cooper v. Chamberlin

78 Cal. 450 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1889

Afterward the board of supervisors of said county, sitting as a board of equalization, attempted to increase the valuation of said property, and did in form increase the same, by the sum of $20,972.98, making the total valuation … (Wills v. Austin, 53 Cal. 152 ; Bucknall v. Story, 46 Cal. 589 ; 13 Am. Rep. 220 ; De Baker v. Carillo, 52 Cal. 473 ; Brumagim v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 265 .)

Kennedy v. City of Gustine

199 Cal. 251 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1926

(Coulter v. Pool, 187 Cal. 181, 186 [ 201 Pac. 120, 123 ]; Logan v. Shields, 190 Cal. 661, 662 [ 214 Pac. 45 ] ; Curtin v. State of California, 61 Cal. App. 377, 390 [ 214 Pac. 1030 ].) … In overruling a like objection in Johnson v.

Crane v. Derrick

157 Cal. 667 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1910

In Moulin v. … (Murdock v. Murdock, 7 Cal. 513 ; Friermuth v. Friermuth, 46 Cal. 42 .) And it is emphatically declared in Murdock v.

Carter v. Meuli

122 Cal. 367 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1898

In Blood v. Wood, 95 Cal. 86 , it was held that the board could not authorize an individual to collect tolls on a public highway. It is argued that the mode pursued here was a mere evasion. … (Wood v. Truckee, 24 Cal. 474 ; People v. Duncan, 41 Cal. 511 ; Visalia v. Sims, 104 Cal. 328 .) We find, however, that after the assignment the board of supervisors recognized the assignment and required Mrs.

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.

Welsh v. County of Plumas

80 Cal. 338 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1889

(Rush v. Jackson, 24 Cal. 308 .) … Proc., sec. 731; Conniff v. San Francisco, 67 Cal. 45 .)

Ramirez v. CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INCORPORATED

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 199 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 2000

101 Cal.Rptr.2d 199 (2000) 11 P.3d 955 Robert RAMIREZ, III, Respondent, v. CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INCORPORATED, Appellant. No. S085000. Supreme Court of California. October 18, 2000. … GEORGE, C.J., MOSK, J., KENNARD, J., BAXTER, J., WERDEGAR, J., CHIN, J., and BROWN, J., concur.

Russ Building Partnership v. City & County of San Francisco

44 Cal. 3d 839 · California Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1988

Improvement Dist. v. Board of Supervisors (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 545, 552 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 391 ].) … Rules of Court, rule 976(d); see Agricultural Labor Relations Board v.

White v. County of San Diego

26 Cal. 3d 897 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1980

Words in Allen v. … Harrison v.

Canales v. City of Alviso

3 Cal. 3d 118 · California Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1970

(Simpson v. … Cipriano v.

County of San Bernardino v. Simmons

46 Cal. 2d 394 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1956

If the person receiving aid has within the State, a spouse or adult child found by the board of supervisors pecuniarily able to support said person, the board of supervisors shall request the district attorney ... to proceed … State Board of Social Welfare (1947), 82 Cal.App.2d 627, 632 [ 186 P.2d 429 ], a case which contains statements upon which, as will appear, doubt was cast by County of Contra Costa v.

Millard v. County of Kern

147 Cal. 682 · California Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1905

It appears that the claim was wholly rejected on its first and only presentation to the board. It was therefore unnecessary to present it again. (San Diego v. Riverside, 125 Cal. 499 , [ 58 Pac. 81 ].) 2. … The late case of Tucker v.

Carter v. City of Los Angeles

31 Cal. 2d 341 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1948

That contention is made for the first time on the present appeal and is based on the decisions in Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners, 26 Cal.2d 716 [ 160 P.2d 816 ], decided in June, 1945, and Tennant v. … (See *350 Livingstone v. MacGillivray, 1 Cal.2d 546, 553 [ 36 P.2d 622 ].) Inquiry into extraneous facts merely to determine motive would not be proper. (Kennedy v. State Personnel Board, 6 Cal.2d 340 [ 57 P.2d 486 ].)

Fickert v. J. H. Zemansky

176 Cal. 443 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1917

In Whitney v. … Co. v. Board of Equalization, 43 Cal. 365 ; People v. Burney, 29 Cal. 459 ; Morley v. Elkins, 37 Cal. 457 ; Central Pac. R. R. Co. v.

Lewis v. State Bar

9 Cal. 3d 704 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1973

Petitioner has the burden in this proceeding to show that the findings of the disciplinary board are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Eschwig v. … As said in Clark v.