Case law

Paxson v. Holt

40 Cal. 466 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1871

the debt of *470 tbe City of San Francisco, (Stats. 1955, p. 285,) and by the sixth section of that Act, his salary as a member of the Board was fixed at $1,200 per annum. … There can be no question that the claim iiere made is for “ salary” of an “ officer,” and that it is a “ demand * * upon the treasury; ” and that though (as held in Paxson v.

People v. Park

56 Cal. 4th 782 · California Supreme Court · May 13, 2013

(Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236, 240, 242, 244; People v. West (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 100, 106.) … Board of Medical Examiners (1949) 34 Cal.2d 62, 67; Adams v. County of Sacramento (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 872, 877-878.)

Johnson v. Gunn

148 Cal. 745 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1906

In Welsh v. … (Bloss v. Lewis, 109 Cal. 497 , [41 Pac. 1081]; Pratt v. Browne, 135 Cal. 652 , [ 67 Pac. 1082 ].)

Balfour-Guthrie Investment Co. v. Woodworth

124 Cal. 169 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1899

In Granger v. Original Empire etc. … (Toland v. Toland, 123 Cal. 140 .) 4.

People v. Bibby

91 Cal. 470 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1891

In Commonwealth v. … In People v.

Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District v. Klukkert

13 Cal. 2d 191 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1939

Also in the ease entitled State Land Settlement Board v. … Dist. v. White, 186 Cal. 183 [ 198 Pac. 1060 , 17 A. L. R. 72], or State Land Settlement Board v.

Jennings v. Le Breton

80 Cal. 8 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1889

(Emery v. Bradford, 29 Cal. 75 ; Nolan v. Reese, 32 Cal. 485 ; Chambers v. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 498 ; Himmelmann v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 278 ; Dorland v. McGlynn, 47 Cal. *12 47 ; Dyer v. Parrott, 60 Cal. 551 ; Boyle v. … (Emery v. Bradford, 29 Cal. 75 ; Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 250 ; Chambers v. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 497 ; People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 19 ; 21 Am. *16 Rep. 677 ; Whiting v. Townsend, 57 Cal. 515 ; Whiting v.

Claremont Country Club v. Industrial Accident Commission

174 Cal. 395 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1917

Soc., 163 Gal. 118, [ 124 Pac. 844 ], and Brown v. Smith, 86 Ga. 274 , [ 22 Am. St. Rep. 456 , 12 S. E. 411 ]. … The foregoing, we think, will certainly show the inappositeness of such authorities as Brown v. Smith, 86 Ga. 274 , [ 22 Am. St. Rep. 456 , 12 S.

Feinstein v. State Bar

39 Cal. 2d 541 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1952

These conclusions were adopted by the Board of Governors. … (Kepler v. State Bar, 216 Cal. 52, 55 [ 13 P.2d 50 ] ; Becks v. State Bar of California, 35 Cal.2d 268, 275 [217 P.2d 409]; McArthur v.

Northwestern Pacific Railroad v. Industrial Accident Commission

174 Cal. 297 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1917

C. 539; Fletcher v. The Duchess [1911], App. Cas. 671, 81 L. J. K. B., N. S., 33; 55 Sol. J. 598, 4 B. W. C. C. 317, 105 L. T., N. S., 121; Losh v. Evans, 51 Week. Rep. 243, 18 Times L. R. 142; Hendry v. Caledonian Ry. … Such is the case of Wemyss Coal Co. v. Symon, 49 Scott. L. R. 921, 6 B. W. C.

Metropolitan Water District v. Burney

215 Cal. 582 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1932

(See Clark v. Los Angeles, 160 Cal. 30 [ 116 Pac. 722 ].) … This question was fully considered by us and determined adversely to the contention of defendant in Golden Gate Bridge & Highway Dist. v. Felt, 214 Cal. 308 [ 5 Pac. (2d) 585 ], and Pasadena v.

Fay v. Pacific Improvement Co.

93 Cal. 253 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1892

(Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 597 ; Hancock v. Rand, 94 N. Y. 1 ; 46 Am. Rep. 112 ; Jalie v. Cardinal, 35 Wis. 118 ; Hall v. Pike, 100 Mass. 495 ; Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. 417 .) … (Hall v. Pike, 100 Mass. 495 .)

Ocean Acc. Etc. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.

173 Cal. 313 · California Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1916

In Gilmour v. Dorman, Long Co. Ltd., 4 B. W. C. … To like effect is Byrket v. Lake Shore Ry.

Mietzsch v. Berkhout

4 Cal. Unrep. 419 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1893

on or before a day named, why such report should not be confirmed; that all objections must be in writing, and filed with the clerk, and by him laid before the board; that the board must fix a *423 day for hearing the objections … If the objection now urged had any merit, it should have been presented to and acted upon by the board; and it cannot, in our opinion, be raised for the first time in the courts: See Lent v.

Pedro v. County of Humboldt

217 Cal. 493 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1933

It was also alleged that prior to the commencement of the action the plaintiff filed with the defendant board of supervisors a claim in due and regular order for damages, which was rejected by the board. … (Lyford v. North Pac. Coast R. R. Co., 92 Cal. 95 [ 28 Pac. 103 ].)

People Ex Rel. Younger v. Superior Court

16 Cal. 3d 30 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1976

(Helfend v. Southern Cal. … Co. v.

Vincent v. Mott

163 Cal. 342 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1912

It does not appear from the petition presented that the Oakland council has been asked to appoint on the election boards to hold the recall election persons of whom half belong to the Republican party and half to the Democratic

American River Flood Control District v. Sweet

214 Cal. 778 · California Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1932

(See Gray v. Reclamation Dist. No. 1500, 174 Cal. 622 [ 163 Pac. 1024 ]; Miller & Lux v. Sacramento & S. J. D. … No. 1500 v. Riley, 192 Cal. 147 [ 218 Pac. 762 ]; Sacramento & S. J. D. Dist. v. Riley, 199 Cal. 668 [ 251 Pac. 207 ]; Reclamation Board v. Riley, 208 Cal. 661, 685 [ 284 Pac. 668 ].)

Pierce v. City of Los Angeles

159 Cal. 516 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1911

Superior Court, 108 Cal. 303 , [ 41 Pac. 278 ], and Spears v. Mathews, 66 N. … (People v. Loucks, 28 Cal. 70 .) The authority of the court to grant a stay seems to be recognized by section 681 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

McMahon v. State Bar

39 Cal. 2d 367 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1952

He also refers to 33 Corpus Juris Secundum where it is said at page 1214 (citing Ludwig v. … The petitioner urges that a sole heir may, under the law, deal with the property of an estate without administration and that the transactions, as to the heir, become final, citing Phelps v.