Case law

Zottman v. City & County of San Francisco

20 Cal. 96 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1862

before its consideration by the other Board. … (See McCracken v. The City of San Francisco, 16 Cal. 619 ; The Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. v. Carroll, 5 Barb. 649 ; The New York Fire Insurance Co. v. Ely, 5 Conn. 568 .)

Mousseau v. Garey

200 Cal. 201 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1926

The board of supervisors had no authority to require plaintiff in his official capacity to perform these duties. … It is true that there is language to be found in the case of County of Humboldt v.

California Portland Cement Co. v. Boone

181 Cal. 35 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1919

(Denny-Renton Clay Coal Co. v. National Surety Co., 93 Wash. 103 , [ 160 Pac. 1 ].) … (Powell v. French, 135 Cal. 636 , [ 68 Pac. 92 ]; Hub Hdw. Co. v. Aetna Accident etc. Co., 178 Cal. 264 , [ 173 Pac. 81 ].)

Raphael Weill & Co. v. Crittenden

139 Cal. 488 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1903

(Curtis v. Richards, 9 Cal. 34 ; Brown v. Scott, 25 Cal. 190 ; Loveland v. Garner, . 74 Cal. 298 ; Mulcahy v. Ripley, 100 Cal. 486 .) In the cases cited by appellant (Etchas v. Orena, 121 Cal. 270 , and Read v. … (Granger’s Bank Assn. v. Clark, 67 Cal. 634 ; Bank of Shasta v. Boyd, 99 Cal. 604 ; Bigelow on Estoppel, 5th ed., p. 463.) The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Lorigan, J., and Henshaw, J., concurred. 1 12 Am. St.

Federal Construction Co. v. Curd

179 Cal. 479 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1918

The petitioner further contends that the case of Bentley v. … The case of Bernard Co. v. Los Angeles, 18 Cal.

Birch v. Phelan

127 Cal. 49 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1899

(Hilton v. Curry, 124 Cal. 84 .) … (See County of Modoc v. Spencer, 103 Cal. 498, 500 .)

Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission

16 Cal. 4th 105 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1997

(Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 259 .) … Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813, 820 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 342 ]; Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020-1021 .)

Miller v. Pillsbury

164 Cal. 199 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1912

An alternative writ of mandate was issued in which the board was required to hear Miller’s application or to show cause why such action should not be had. … (Bourn v. Hart, 93 Cal. 321 , [ 27 Am. St. Rep. 203 , 15 L. R. A. 431, 28 Pac. 951 ] ; Chapman v. State, 104 Cal. 690 , [ 43 Am. St. Rep. 158 , 38 Pac. 457 ] ; Melvin v. State, 121 Cal. 16 , [ 53 Pac. 416 ] ; Denning v.

Fair v. Stevenot

29 Cal. 486 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

Sec. 399; Dey v. Dunham, 2 John. Ch. R. 182; Grimstone v. Carter, 3 Paige, 421 ; Jackson v. Van Valkenberg, 8 Cow. 260 ; Tuttle v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 213 ; and see also Williamson v. Brown, 15 N. Y. 354 , in which Mr. … (See Kendall v. Lawrence, 22 Pick. 544 ; Bell v. Twilight, 2 Foster, N. H. 518; McMechan v. Griffing, 3 Pick. 155 ; Williamson v. Brown, 15 N. Y. 354 .) It was held in Hunter v.

Middlebrook v. Superior Court

21 Cal. 2d 579 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1943

Lime Co. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. 170 [ 76 P. 973 ] ; Goodrich v. Superior Court, 92 Cal.App. 695 [ 268 P. 669 ] ; James v. Police Court, 39 Cal.App. 362 [ 178 P. 867 ].) … (Borchard v. Board of Supervisors, 144 Cal. 10 [77 P. 708]; Stumpf v. Board of Supervisors, 131 Cal. 364 [ 63 P. 663 , 82 Am.St.Rep. 350 ] ; Goodrich v. Superior Court, supra; Donovan v.

County of San Bernardino v. Southern Pacific Railroad

137 Cal. 659 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1902

In People v. Central Pac. R. R. … Counsel cite County of San Luis Obispo v. White, 91 Cal. 432 , as authority for their contention.

Aguilar v. Lerner

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 287 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 2004

We applied the statutory rights exception to the rule of arbitral finality in Board of Education v. Round Valley Teachers Assn. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 269 , 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 115 , 914 P.2d 193 ( Round Valley ). … WE CONCUR: BAXTER and BROWN, JJ. Concurring Opinion by MORENO, J. I concur in the judgment.

Sharon S. v. San Diego County Superior Court

116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 496 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 2002

116 Cal.Rptr.2d 496 (2002) 39 P.3d 512 SHARON S., Petitioner, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent. Annette F., Real Party in Interest. No. S102671. Supreme Court of California. January 29, 2002. … GEORGE, C.J, KENNARD, J., BAXTER, J., WERDEGAR, J., CHIN, J., BROWN, J., and MORENO, J, concur.

Woolwine v. Superior Court

182 Cal. 388 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1920

(Lassen County v. Shinn, 88 Cal. 512, [ 26 Pac. 366 ]. Other eases to the same effect are Hornblower v. Duden, 35 Cal. 670 ; Merriam v. Barnum, 116 Cal. 623 , [ 48 Pac. 727 ]; Merced Co. v. … A distinction is made in Merriam v.

Davis v. State Bar

20 Cal. 2d 332 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1942

In fulfillment of this duty, the board may adopt or reject the findings of a local administrative committee in whole or in part and it may also take additional evidence and make other findings. (See Smallberg v. … (People v. Fleming, 220 Cal. 601 [ 32 P. (2d) 593 ]; People v. Tambara, 192 Cal. 236 [ 219 Pac. 745 ].)

Ocean Accident & Guarantee Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n

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

In the cases of Kitchenham v. Steamship Johannesburg, and Leach v. Oakley, Street & Co., 4 B. W. *319 C. C. 91, two seamen on different ships had been ashore for their own purposes. … In Gilmour v. Dorman, Long & Co. Ltd., 4 B. W. C.

Town of Dixon v. Mayes

72 Cal. 166 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1887

The same question was presented to this court in City of Santa Rosa v. … of trustees acting as a board of equalization, and all of the returns of the assessor thereon were by the board examined, considered, *169 and rectified; that the tax was levied by the board of trustees on the sixteenth

Wickersham v. Murphy

93 Cal. 41 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1892

The present case involves a consideration of the same facts as the case of Wickersham v. Brittan, ante, p. 34. … board, or the government of said corporation, in the interest of and in support of the claim of said P.

Ybarra v. Spangard

25 Cal. 2d 486 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1944

(Ales v. Ryan, 8 Cal. 2d 82 [ 64 P.2d 409 ]; Brown v. Shortlidge, 98 Cal.App. 352 [ 277 P. 134 ]; Moore v. Steen, 102 Cal.App. 723 [ 283 P. 833 ] ; Armstrong v. Wallace, 8 Cal.App.2d 429 [ 47 P.2d 740 ] ; Meyer v. … (See Ales v. Ryan, 8 Cal.2d 82 [ 64 P.2d 409 ]; Brown v. Shortlidge, 98 Cal.App. 352 [ 277 P. 134 ].)

Bates v. Campbell

213 Cal. 438 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1931

(Chavez v. Times-Mirror Co., 185 Cal. 20, 25 [ 195 Pac. 666 ] ; Grand v. Dreyfus, 122 Cal. 58, 61 [54 Pac. 389]; Hearne v. De Young, 119 Cal. 670 [ 52 Pac. 150 ] ; Des Granges v. Crall, 27 Cal. … In Swan v.