Case law

Turner v. Board of Trustees

16 Cal. 3d 818 · California Supreme Court · May 4, 1976

(Lindros v. Governing Bd. of the Torrance Unified School Dist., supra, 9 Cal.3d 524, 534; Bekiaris v. Board of Education, supra, 6 Cal.3d 575, 586-587 ; Griggs v. Board of Trustees, supra, 61 Cal.2d 93, 96 ; McGlone v. … The court in Young also relied upon language in Board of Regents v.

Hagenmeyer v. Board of Equalization

82 Cal. 214 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1889

As this was made a part of the return, so far as the appellant could make it so, even although it was not properly a part thereof (Spring V. W. W. v. … The rule as to the matter of notice in such cases as that in hand is well stated in Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 103 , as follows: “In our opinion (as intimated in Patten v.

Enyeart v. Board of Supervisors

66 Cal. 2d 728 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1967

In Krouser v. … Mosk v.

Ferdig v. State Personnel Board

71 Cal. 2d 96 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1969

(See Aylward v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (1948) 31 Cal.2d 833, 839 [ 192 P.2d 929 ]; Patten v. California State Personnel Board (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 168, 172-175 [ 234 P.2d 987 ]; Pinion v. … The jurisdiction of the Board, including its adjudicating power is derived directly from this section. (Boren v. State Personnel Board, supra, 37 Cal.2d 634, 637-638 ; Neely v.

Kahn v. Board of Supervisor

79 Cal. 388 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1889

Justice McKee in Mulligan v. Smith, 59 Cal. 206 . … The case of Lent v. Tillson, 72 Cal. 404 , is in accord with these views.

Aronoff v. Franchise Tax Board

60 Cal. 2d 177 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1963

The petitioner relies strongly on Laisne v. … The court pointed out that its prior decision in Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 6 Cal.2d 557 [59 *182 P.2d 119], was controlling.

May v. Board of Directors

34 Cal. 2d 125 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1949

Board of Directors of Public Schools, 143 C.C.A. 303 [ 229 F. 1 ]; Van Derzee v. City of Long Beach (App.Div.2d), 39 N.Y.S.2d 401 ; see City of Little Rode v. … rather than the board of directors of the district.

Linden v. Board of Supervisors

45 Cal. 6 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

Drake v. Regents, 4 Mich. 98 ; Heffner v. Commonwealth, 28 Penn. St. R. 108; Sanger v. County Commissioners of Kennebec, 25 Maine R. 291.) … The party applying here appears to have no interest, beneficial or otherwise, other than such interest as each one of the fourteen hundred and fifty-one persons, besides himself, who signed the petition to the Board of Supervisors

Wiles v. State Personnel Board

19 Cal. 2d 344 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1942

(Brown v. State Personnel Board, 43 Cal. App. (2d) 70 [ 110 Pac. (2d) 497 ]; Nilsson v. State Personnel Board, 25 Cal. *352 App. (2d) 699 [ 78 Pac. (2d) 467 ].) … (Brown v. State Personnel Board, supra; Kelly v. State Personnel Board, 31 Cal. App. (2d) 443 [ 88 Pac. (2d) 264 ].)

Meredith v. Board of Supervisors

50 Cal. 433 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

Farrell v. Board of Trustees

85 Cal. 408 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1890

This interpretation gives to the language of the clause its usual and ordinary meaning, which is the true rule where the words are not employed in any technical or peculiar sense. *414 (Weill v. Kenfield, 54 Cal. 113 .) … This has been ruled against appellants’ contention in Ford v. Board, 81 Cal. 19 .” In that case there was no reference in either opinion to the clause of the constitution referred to.

Conlin v. Board of Supervisors

114 Cal. 404 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1896

In Sinton v. … (Conlin v. Board of Super visors, 99 Cal. 17 ; 37 Am. St. Rep. 17 .)

Johnson v. Board of Supervisors

208 Cal. 282 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1929

Our own Supreme Court, in considering the interpretation to be given to a proviso in the case of People v. … Inferentially, at least, the views we have expressed find support in the case of Esberg v.

Horner v. Board of Trustees

61 Cal. 2d 79 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1964

(Comstock v. Board of Trustees (1937) 20 Cal.App.2d 731 [ 67 P.2d 694 ]; see Titus v. Lawndale School Dist. (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 822, 827 [ 322 P.2d 56 ].) … In Sitzman v.

Griffin v. Board of Supervisors

60 Cal. 2d 318 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1963

This construction is in accord with the position taken by this court in Blotter v. … The eases of Dozier v. Board of Superviors, 130 Cal.App. 746 [ 20 P.2d 726 ], and Peterson v.

Thompson v. Board of Trustees

144 Cal. 281 · California Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1904

Nor, i£ this objection could be obviated, would it have been competent for the board thus to bind its successors. (Broom’s Leg. Max. Leges posteriores, etc.; Kellogg v. Oshkosh, 14 Wis. 623, 628 , Brightman v. … The words “the board of trustees shall submit to said voters,” etc., are not necessarily to be construed as mandatory (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “shall”; Railroad Co. v. Hecht, 95 U.

Hill v. Board of Supervisors

176 Cal. 84 · California Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1917

It is conceded that this case has a close analogue in Hopping v. … To the same effect are State v. Ferguson, 104 La. 249 , [ 81 Am. St. Rep. 123 , 28 South. 917 ]; State v. Lancaster County, 17 Neb. 87 , [ 22 N. W. 228 ]; Oxnard Beet Sugar Co. v. State, 73 Neb. 57 , [ 102 N.

Klein v. Board of Education

1 Cal. 2d 706 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1934

This decision was followed under similar facts in Fairchild v. Board of Education, 107 Cal. 92 [ 40 Pac. 26 ], and was approved in Barthel v. … In Cullen v. Board of Education, 126 Cal.

Barber v. Board of Supervisors

42 Cal. 630 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1872

The decisions of the Board, after hearing and notice, are made final and conclusive on all persons entitled to appeal, “ as to all errors and irregularities which said Board could have remedied and avoided.” … But I think the petition was sufficient to entitle the Board to entertain the appeal.

Bringle v. Board of Supervisors

54 Cal. 2d 86 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 1960

(See Rubin v. Board of Directors, 16 Cal.2d 119, 124 [ 104 P.2d 1041 ] ; cf. Edmonds v. County of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.2d 642 [ 255 P.2d 772 ] ; Metcalf v. County of Los Angeles, 24 Cal.2d 267, 271 [ 148 P.2d 645 ].) … (See Metcalf v. County of Los Angeles, 24 Cal.2d 267, 270-271 [ 148 P.2d 645 ] ; Rubin v. Board of Directors, 16 Cal.2d 119, 124 [ 104 P.2d 1041 ].)