Case law

Kennedy v. State Personnel Board

6 Cal. 2d 340 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1936

On April 15, 1935, petitioner was dismissed from his position by the Dental Board, for reasons filed with the State Personnel Board. … (See Livingstone v. MacGillivray, 1 Cal. (2d) 546 [ 36 Pac. (2d) 622 ] ; State v. Kennelly, 75 Conn. 704 [ 55 Atl. 555 ].) The alternative writ of mandate heretofore issued is discharged, a peremptory writ is denied.

Taylor v. Board of Trustees

36 Cal. 3d 500 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1984

In Centinela Valley Secondary Teachers Assn. v. Centinela Valley Union High Sch. … (See Martin 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.

McNeil v. Board of Retirement

51 Cal. 2d 278 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1958

Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 49 Cal.2d 729, 736 [ 321 P.2d 729 ].) … State Personnel Board, 37 Cal.2d 634, 643 [ 234 P.2d 981 ]) and there is nothing in the facts of this case to bring it within the exceptions noted in Farrell v. *286 County of Placer, 23 Cal.2d 624, 627-628 [ 145 P.2d 570

Board of Education v. Keenan

55 Cal. 642 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

The lot in controversy appears on the map to be colored brown. … The efficacy of such testimony is shown in the case of the Board of Education v. Donahue, 53 Cal. 190 .

Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers, Inc.

206 Cal. 515 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1929

In Wood, Curtis & Co. v. Herman Min. … (Sheeley v. Jones, 192 Cal. 256 [ 219 Pac. 744 ]; Warner v. Warner, 100 Cal. 11 [ 34 Pac. 523 ] ; Smith v. Smith, 88 Cal. 572 [ 26 Pac. 356 ]; Nason v. Feldhusen, 34 Cal. App. 789 [ 168 Pac. 1162 ].)

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.

People ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Brown

16 Cal. 441 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

The Board of Supervisors appointed Mr. Brown to supply the vacancy. *442 At the general election, (September, 1858) Brown was elected to the office, and at the next general election, (September, 1859) was again elected. … It would thus appear that the election of Brown in 1859 was regular, and that the effect of it would be to invest him with the office until 1861, unless some special provision altering the general law exists.

Bixler v. Board of Supervisors

59 Cal. 698 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1881

The Board of Supervisors is vested with legislative, judicial, and executive powers (People v. Supervisors of El Dorado County, 8 Cal. 58 ; Waugh v. … (Litchfield v. Vernon, 41 N. Y. 133 .) In the case of Hagar v.

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 ].)

Griffin v. Board of Supervisors

60 Cal. 2d 751 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1964

(Mann v. Davis (D.C.E.D.Va. 1962) 213 F. Supp. 577, 584 (probable jurisdiction noted, 374 U.S. 803 [ 83 S.Ct. 1692 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1029 ]); Thigpen v. … Meyers (D.C.W.D.Wash. 1962) 211 F.Supp. 826, 831-832 (appeal pending); see alst Moss v. Burkhart (D.C.W.D.Okla. 1963) 220 F.Supp. 149, 153 (appeal pending); Moss v.

McKinny v. Board of Trustees

31 Cal. 3d 79 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1982

It is such segregated schools which traditionally have resulted in the inherently unequal educational opportunities condemned in [Brown v. … (Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman (Dayton I) (1977) 433 U.S. 406, 413 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 851, 859 , 97 S.Ct. 2766 ]; see also Dayton Board of Education v.

Board of Education v. Davidson

190 Cal. 162 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1922

It is, of course, well settled that the organization and government of the public school system is a public matter and governed by the general laws of the state (Kennedy v. … of education or board of school trustees of such incorporated city or town, ...”

Grants Pass Land & Water Co. v. Brown

168 Cal. 456 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1914

(Price v. Be Reyes, 161 Cal. 484, 490 , [ 119 Pac. 893 ] ; Young v. Blakeman, 153 Cal. 483 , [ 95 Pac. 888 ].) … (McNamara v. Seaton, 82 111. 500.)

Stoutenborough v. Board of Education

104 Cal. 664 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1894

and that he then called on the attorney for the board, and was informed by him that said board of education did not claim said lot, and had no title thereto. … (Merritt v. Campbell, 47 Cal. 542 .)

Curtis v. Board of Supervisors

7 Cal. 3d 942 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1972

.; wealth [citing Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) 383 U.S. 663 ]; tax status [citing Kramer v. … Board of Education (1967) 387 U.S. 105 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 650 , 87 S.Ct. 1549 ], had confirmed that school boards need not be elected. Phoenix v.

Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board

236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2018

We will uphold the Board’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record.’ ” (Regents of University of California v. … (Board of Education v. Jack M. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 691, 698, fn. 3; see Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 384-385.) 14 437; Eisenberg et al., Cal.

Giddings v. Board of Trustees

165 Cal. 695 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1913

When the act of April 4, 1911, was enacted the *698 city of San Buenaventura, through its board of trustees, possessed the power to regulate or prohibit such traffic. … under the Initiative Act and under the constitution to exercise the same powers which the board of trustees may exercise.

Todd v. Board of Education

122 Cal. 106 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1898

Barber [a member of the board] moved that the plans of H. Todd for the enlargement-of the Spring street building be adopted. Carried.” … (McCarthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land etc. Co., 111 Cal. 340 ; Thomas v. Pacific Beach Co., 115 Cal. 136 ; Foorman v. Wallace, 75 Cal. 555; Hoag v. Howard, 55 Cal. 564.) The judgment should be affirmed.

Wilson v. Board of Supervisors

3 Cal. 386 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1853

If it is true, as insisted by the appellant, that the Board of Supervisors had no jurisdiction over the subject, the objection should first have been taken before the board. … This course might have saved the necessity of an appeal; without the action of the board, it is impossible to say whether it would have decided to take, or decline jurisdiction, and until it shall do one or the other, there