Case law

Garlow v. State Bar

30 Cal. 3d 912 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1982

(E.g., Hallinan v. State Bar (1948) 33 Cal.2d 246 [ 200 P.2d 787 ]; Paine v. State Bar (1939) 14 Cal.2d 150 [ 93 P.2d 103 ].) … In Barreiro v.

Smith v. Morse

2 Cal. 524 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1852

In Watkins v. Holman, 16 Peters, the Court say, “ If the administratrix and Brown have acted fraudulently in procuring the passage of the act, or in' the sale under it, relief may be given on that ground.” … Playfair v. Musgrove, 14 Mees. & Weis.; Rex v. Dean et al, 2 Shower.

American Securities Co. v. Forward

220 Cal. 566 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1934

This point was given thorough consideration by us in Pasadena Junior College Dist. v. Board of Supervisors, 216 Cal. 61 [ 13 Pac. (2d) 678 ], and the holding therein is determinative in the instant case. … Co. v. Thompson, supra.)

McCue v. State Bar

4 Cal. 2d 79 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1935

Thereafter the case had the full consideration of the Board of Governors of The State Bar and petitioner appeared before them and made a statement. … (In re McCue, 77 Mont. 47 [ 248 Pac. 187 ]; In re McCue, 80 Mont. 537 [ 261 Pac. 341 ]; In re McCue, 211 Cal. 57 [ 293 Pac. 47 ]; Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal. (2d) 75 [ 39 Pac. (2d) 403 ].)

Modesto Investment Co. v. Modesto City School District

213 Cal. 410 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1931

XI, see. 18; Mahoney v. San Francisco, 201 Cal. 248 [ 257 Pac. 49 ]; San Francisco v. Boyle, 195 Cal. 426 [ 233 Pac. 965 ]; Arthur v. City of Petaluma, 175 Cal. 216 [ 165 Pac. 698 ].) … Co. v. Boyle, 209 Cal. 398 [ 287 Pac. 968 ], Mahoney v. San Francisco, supra, and Chester v.

Perry v. Otay Irrigation District

127 Cal. 565 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1900

In People v. Selma Irr. … (See, also, Quint v. Hoffman, 103 Cal. 506 .) In Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.

Graff v. Mesmer

52 Cal. 636 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1878

A settlement of the account by the Probate Court, and an order to pay the amount found due, is necessary in order to maintain a suit against the sureties. ( Stilwell v. Mill, 19 Johns. 303 ; Salisbury v. … (Brown v. Snell, 57 N. Y. 297 .) There has been a breach of the bond. (1 Williams on Executors, p. 446.)

California Southern Hotel Co. v. Callender

94 Cal. 120 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1892

App. 111 ; Ehrlich v. Insurance Co., 88 Mo. 249 ; Drake v. Insurance Co., 3 Grant Cas. 325 ; Witherell v. … (Insurance Co. v. Schollenberger, 44 Pa. St. 259.)

Benson v. State Bar

13 Cal. 3d 581 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1975

(Benson v. … (Vaughn v. State Bar, supra; Himmel v. State Bar, supra.) In this respect the findings of the local committee and the board are identical.

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.

People v. Superior Court (Giron)

11 Cal. 3d 793 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1974

(In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 685 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 511 P.2d 1153 ]; People v. Dena (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1001, 1008 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 357 ]; People v. Barteau (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 483, 486 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 139 ].) … (People v.

Reclamation Dist. No. 673 v. Diepenbrock

168 Cal. 577 · California Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1914

In Nisbet v. Clio Mining Co., 2 Cal. … In Irrigation District v.

People v. Simmons

119 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1897

Two of the persons elected as members of said board were not such qualified electors. … (People v. Roberts, 6 Cal. 214 ; People v. Gatewood, 20 Cal. 146 ; People v. Hunter, supra.) We advise that the judgment and orders appealed from be affirmed. Chipman, C., and Britt, C., concurred.

County of Riverside v. Butcher

133 Cal. 324 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1901

The point may be regarded as settled by this court in County of Los Angeles v. … The complaint alleges that the board “ caused a notice to be served upon W.

Craighan v. O'Brien

199 Cal. 652 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1926

“The applicants will be examined orally on subjects Nos. 1 and 2, and will be rated on these subjects by a Board of Special Examiners as in the judgment of such Board shall seem just and proper. … The board of health conducted a trial on said charges, and on March 1, 1923, adopted the following resolution: “Resolved, that the Board of Health finds the charges of incompetency as made against Lily A.

Greene v. Hawaiian Dredging Co.

26 Cal. 2d 245 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1945

You are Expected to Report for Work Monday, April 21, as per Usual With No Change in the Pro- CEDUBK ‘' Signed V. F. … Such cases as Darst v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 81 F. 284 , and In re Nagel, 278 F. 105 , relied upon by defendants are not in point.

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.

Lester v. State Bar

17 Cal. 3d 547 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1976

(See Scofield v. State Bar (1965) 62 Cal.2d 624, 628 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 401 P.2d 217 ].) Thus, although this court generally attaches great weight to the disciplinary recommendation of the board (Silver v. … (Silver v. State Bar, supra, 13 Cal.3d 134, 147 .)

In re Murphy

15 Cal. 3d 533 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1975

The board determined that moral turpitude was involved and recommended suspension as hereinabove- indicated. 1 Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed in People v. … In determining the appropriate degree of discipline to be imposed, this court will give great weight to the recommendation of the board. (In re Hanley, 13 Cal.3d 448, 451 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 5 , 530 P.2d 1381 ]; Yokozeki v.

Gould v. Grubb

14 Cal. 3d 661 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1975

Brown (1973) 8 Cal.3d 733 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 12 , 505 P.2d 204 ] (hereafter MAPA) and Diamond v. … (See Curtis v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 7 Cal.3d 942, 952-955 ; Riddell v. National Democratic Party, supra, 508 F.2d 770, 776-779 ; cf. American Party of Texas v.