Case law

Hughes v. Alsip

112 Cal. 587 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1896

(Treanor v. Houghton, 103 Cal. 53 ; Schluter v. Harvey, 65 Cal. 158 ; Hallock v. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 167 ; 1 Chitty on Pleading, 673.) … , upon which the bids were made; that the posting of notice “at or near the office door of the said board of trustees” is a sufficient averment of a compliance with the provision of the law requiring the notice to be posted

Allen v. Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters

51 Cal. 2d 805 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1959

Board of Public Works, 216 Cal. 546, 552 [ 15 P.2d 156 ] ; see also Merchant etc. Assn. v. Kellogg E. & D. Co., 28 Cal.2d 594, 599 [ 170 P.2d 923 ] ; People v. Murray, 135 Cal.App.2d 600, 603 [ 287 P.2d 775 ]; McVey v. … (Parker v. Bowron, 40 Cal. 2d 344 [ 254 P.2d 6 ]; Bartholomae Oil Corp. v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.2d 726 [ 117 P.2d 674 ] ; Rogers v. Board of Directors of Pasadena, 218 Cal. 221 [ 22 P.2d 509 ]; El Camino L. Corp. v.

Tomerlin v. Canadian Indemnity Co.

61 Cal. 2d 638 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1964

Justice Brown (RM.) in the opinion prepared by him for the District Court of Appeal in Tomerlin v. Canadian Indemnity Co. (Cal.App.) 37 Cal.Rptr. 15.

People v. Russel

69 Cal. 2d 187 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1968

Presiding Justice Brown in the opinion prepared by him for the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One (People v. Russel, 4 Crim. 2841, filed December 13, 1967, certified for nonpublieation).

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission

18 Cal. 3d 308 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1976

(Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners (1962) 57 Cal.2d 228, 235-237 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 368 P.2d 101 ]; State Board v. … Co. v.

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 ].)

Saunders v. Clark

29 Cal. 299 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

(The People v. Utica Insurance Company, 15 John., 380; Whitney v. Whitney, 14 Mass. 92 .) … This grant had been presented to the Board of Land Commissioners established by the Government of the United States for the purpose of adjudicating upon all such claims, and was still pending before them, undertennined.

C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District

53 Cal. 4th 861 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 2012

(See id., § 44934 [dismissal proceedings may be initiated by a governing board formulating charges or by a person filing written and verified charges against the employee]; see, e.g., California Teachers Assn. v. … ]; Johnson v.

Estate of Duncan

9 Cal. 2d 207 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1937

Five young men in his office were selected as the first board of directors of the organization. … Brown as a means of covering up his financial dealings.

Professional Engineers v. Department of Transportation

15 Cal. 4th 543 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1997

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 180 .) … Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal.2d 832, 839 [ 313 P.2d 545 ] (whether sales tax levy was subject to referendum); Busch v.

Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd.

2 Cal. 3d 943 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1970

TIEBERG, as Director, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; LASSIE TELEVISION, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. Docket No. L.A. 29725. … In Bartels v.

City of Los Angeles v. Industrial Acc. Com.

63 Cal. 2d 255 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1965

The cases of Tyra v. Board of Police etc. Comrs. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 666 [ 197 P.2d 710 ], and Phillis v. … Yet, as the District Court of Appeal explained, the decision of Larson v. Board of Police etc.

Gray v. Burr

138 Cal. 109 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1902

The board could not, by providing for the work of sidewalks and curbs in separate resolutions of intention, deprive the owners of the right of protest against either of the items (Los Angeles Lighting Co. v. … (Ryan v. Altschul, 103 Cal. 174 .) The judgment and order are affirmed. Garoutte, J., and Van Dyke, J., concurred.

In Re Calaway

20 Cal. 3d 165 · California Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1977

(Italics added, United States v. Sacco (9th Cir. 1974) 491 F.2d 995, 1009 [conc, opn. by Hufstedler, J. quoting from a legislative report].) … (See Sturr v. State Bar (1959) 52 Cal.2d 125, 134 [ 338 P.2d 897 ]; Clark v. State Bar (1952) 39 Cal.2d 161, 166-174 [ 246 P.2d 1 ]; Laney v. State Bar (1936) 7 Cal.2d 419, 422-423 [ 60 P.2d 845 ].)

Biggins v. Champlin

59 Cal. 113 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1881

(Columbet v. Pacheco, 48 Cal. 395 ; Sneed v. Osborn, 25 id. 626; Baldwin v. Brown, 16 N. Y. 359 ; Reed v. Farr, 35 id. 113.) Judgment and order affirmed. McKinstby, J., and McKee, J., concurred.

People v. Bank of Shasta County

172 Cal. 507 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1916

(Williams v. Carver, 171 Cal. 658 , [ 154 Pac. 472 ].) Such contributions are not to be counted in ascertaining the value of the shares. … (Williams v. Carver, supra.)

Fulmer v. Pacific Southwest Trust & Savings Bank

203 Cal. 693 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1928

S.) 303, 116 Pac. 47 ]; McCann v. Pennie, 100 Cal. 547, 551 [ 35 Pac. 158 ]; Janin v. Browne, 59 Cal. 37, 44 .) In Janin v. … (To the same effect, see McCann v. Pennie, supra, at page 552.) In the case of Janin v. Browne , as here, the agreement provided for a forfeiture of all sums paid thereunder in the event of a breach by the vendee.

People ex rel. Waugh v. Auburn & Yankee Jim's Turnpike Co.

122 Cal. 335 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1898

tolls upon such a highway. *340 (El Dorado County v. … In McMullin v.

Gatti v. Highland Park Builders, Inc.

27 Cal. 2d 687 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1946

Radis, 74 Cal.App. 765 [ 242 P. 90 ]; Holm v. Bramwell, 20 Cal.App.2d 332 [ 67 P.2d 114 ].) … Similar considerations were before the court in the case of Citizens State Bank v.

Hygienic Health Food Co. v. Grant

187 Cal. 431 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1921

The case of Rozecrans Gold Mining Co. v. Morey, 111 Cal. 114 , [ 43 Pac. 585 ], cited by appellant, does not support this contention. The facts of that case make it entirely inapplicable here. … In the present case, the question is not between the corporation and an illegally elected officer, as it was in the case of Rozecrans Gold Mining Co. v. Morey, supra.