Case law

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 .)

State of California v. Marin Municipal Water Dist.

17 Cal. 2d 699 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1941

Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110 [ 26 Pac. 646 , 23 Am. St. Rep. 451 ]; Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227 (U. S. 1873) [ 22 L. Ed. 80 ].) … Beverly Hills v.

Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 274 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1999

83 Cal.Rptr.2d 274 (1999) 973 P.2d 51 Marybeth ARMENDARIZ et al., Respondents, v. FOUNDATION HEALTH PSYCHCARE SERVICES, INC., Appellant. No. S075942. Supreme Court of California. March 9, 1999. … GEORGE, C.J., and MOSK, KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN and BROWN, JJ., concur.

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 ].)

Kelly v. Town of Hayward

192 Cal. 242 · California Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1923

In the Colorado ease cited by respondents of McIntyre v. Board of County Commrs., El Paso County, 15 Colo. … Board, 51 Cal. 418 , denying the right of the board of supervisors of San Francisco to devote a portion of a public square to the purpose of erecting a schoolhouse thereon, and the case of Spires v.

City of Goleta v. Superior Court

52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 114 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2006

On January 15, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved the vesting tentative map. … (City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 488-489 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ].)” (Strong v. County of Santa Cruz (1975) 15 Cal.3d 720, 725 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 896 , 543 P.2d 264 ]; see Hughes v.

Fall v. State Bar

25 Cal. 2d 149 · California Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1944

(See Zagoren v. Hall, 122 Cal.App. 460 [ 10 P.2d 202 ].) … (Bryant v. State Bar, 21 Cal.2d 285 [ 131 P.2d 523 ]; Stanford v. State Bar, 15 Cal.2d 721 [ 104 P.2d 635 ]; In re Hatch, 10 Cal.2d 147 [ 73 P.2d 885 ].)

Sherman v. McCarthy

57 Cal. 507 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

In the case of Bonds v. … (See also Lent v. Morrill, 25 Cal. 500 ; The Vallejo Land Association v. Vlera, 48 id. 579 .) The appellants Mary E.

Haas v. City of Los Angeles

21 Cal. 2d 393 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1942

Substantially the same problem, arising under the same city charter provisions, was presented and determined in the case of McKeag v. Board of Pension Commrs., ante, p. 386 [ 132 P.2d 198 ] (this day decided). … State Personnel Board, 29 Cal.App.2d 314 [ 84 P.2d 185 ], and Carrick v. Sherman, 105 Cal.App. 546 [ 288 P. 143 ].

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.)

Lady v. State Bar

28 Cal. 2d 497 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1946

The deception indulged on July 25th was not found to constitute a contempt of court nor did it affect the outcome of the ease of Lady v. Sunderland. … (Pickering v. State Bar, 24 Cal.2d 141, 145 [ 148 P.2d 1 ] ; Utz v. State Bar, 21 Cal.2d 100, 105 [ 130 P.2d 377 ].)

Okun v. Superior Court

29 Cal. 3d 442 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1981

I, § 2; Wilson v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 652 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 532 P.2d 116 ].) … As I stated recently in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Deas v.

In Re Silverton

14 Cal. 3d 517 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1975

This is a proceeding to review recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar (Board) in L.A. No. 30359 that petitioner be disbarred and in L.A. … As hereinabove noted, the recommendation of the local administrative committee was suspension for a substantial period of time, while the Board has recommended disbarment. (3) As explained in Toll v.

Harris v. City of Santa Monica

56 Cal. 4th 203 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 2013

Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211, 220 (Commodore); see Brown v. … Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle (1977) 429 U.S. 274 (Mt. Healthy), where a teacher similarly alleged he was discharged for exercising his First Amendment rights and sought reinstatement with backpay.

Seale v. Masonic Cemetery Assn.

217 Cal. 286 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1933

The opinion in Masonic Cemetery Assn. v. … (Masonic Cemetery Assn. v. Gamage, supra; Hollywood Cemetery Assn. v. Powell, 210 Cal. 121 [ 291 Pac. 397 , 71 A. L. R. 310]; Hornblower v. Masonic Cemetery Assn., supra.)

California Pac. Title Trust Co. v. Boyle

209 Cal. 398 · California Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1930

In Smilie v. … They are Chester v. Carmichael, 187 Cal. 287 [ 201 Pac. 925, 928 ], San Francisco v. Boyle, 195 Cal. 426 [ 233 Pac. 965, 969 ], and Mahoney v.

El Rancho Unified School District v. National Education Ass'n

33 Cal. 3d 946 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1983

(E.g., Garment Workers v. Labor Board (1961) 366 U.S. 731, 738 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 762, 768 , 81 S.Ct. 1603 ]; Pick-Mt. Laurel Corp. v. N. L. R. B. (3d Cir. 1980) 625 F.2d 476, 482 .) … (E.g., Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board (1956) 350 U.S. 270, 278 [ 100 L.Ed. 309 , 318, 76 S.Ct. 349 ].)

C. J. Kubach Co. v. McGuire

199 Cal. 215 · California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1926

(Marin Mutual Water Dist. v. Chenu, 188 Cal. 734 [ 207 Pac. 251 ]; Balthasar v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 187 Cal. 302 [19 A. L. R. 452, 202 Pac. 37 ]; Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110 [ 23 Am. St. … Rep. 451 , 26 Pac. 646 ]; Whittaker v. County of Tuolumne, 96 Cal. 100 [ 30 Pac. 1016 ].)

People v. Hendrix

192 Cal. 441 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1923

. *448 In People v. … [Evidence], sec. 575; Lawson v. The State, 32 Ark. 220 ; State v. Lanier, 79 N. C. 622 ; People v.

Nolan v. the State Bar

219 Cal. 759 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1934

The action is referred to as Re Hedges v. Scafidi. Two days thereafter he' informed Mrs. … “Rec’d this day $10.00 on acct. re Hedges v. Seafidi. (signed) “S. Nolan.” Mrs. Hedges was in financial difficulties at the time of the transaction.