Case law

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.

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.

Johnson v. Board of Supervisors

65 Cal. 481 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1884

The defense set up is that the payment of the judgment will result in incurring indebtedness and liability exceeding the income of the county for the then current fiscal year, and that the board has no authority to provide … The order to allow is correct; but the board of supervisors does not pay demands; the treasurer is to pay; and it may be that when the warrant shall be presented there will not be sufficient money in the proper fund for the

Finch v. Board of Supervisors

29 Cal. 453 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

The only question of which we can take cognizance is, whether the Board in the action taken exceeded its jurisdiction. … After having heard the testimony of the contesting parties, the Board awarded a license to Harvey.

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

Patterson v. Board of Supervisors

50 Cal. 344 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

(Godey v. Godey, 39 Cal. 157 .)

Carey v. Brown

2 Colo. L. Rep. 23 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1881

(Newcomb v. Harton, 18 Wis. 566 .) … (Bond v. Hickman, 29 Cal., 460 .)

Ashe v. Board of Supervisors

71 Cal. 236 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1886

(Linden v. Alameda Co., 45 Cal. 7 .) Writ quashed and proceeding dismissed. Myrick, J., concurred in the judgment.

Burr v. Board of Supervisors

96 Cal. 210 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1892

. — Petition to the superior court for a writ of review for the purpose of annulling an- order of the respondent board, allowing a claim of James Mc-Clatchy & Co. against the county for advertising. … A court will not exercise a power for no material or useful purpose (Huntington v. Nicoll, 3 Johns. 598 ), and will refuse a writ of mandamus if it appears that it can have no beneficial effect. (People v.

Wolf v. Board of Supervisors

143 Cal. 333 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1904

(Fremont v. Merced Miming Co., 9 Cal. 19 ; Hobbs v. Amador etc. Co., 66 Cal. 161 .)

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, ...”

Carey v. Brown

2 Colo. L. Rep. 23 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1881

(Newcomb v. Harton, 18 Wis. 566 .) … (Bond v. Hickman, 29 Cal., 460 .)

Williams v. Board of Supervisors

65 Cal. 160 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1884

—The order of a board of supervisors, creating a district for the reclamation of swamp land, is an act of legisla *161 lion, in the exorcise of the taxing or police power of the State, which is not reviewable upon certiorari … (Bixler v. County of Sacramento, 59 Cal. 700 .) The writ of certiorari is, as a remedy, only available for the review of an act judicial in its character. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Ellis v. Board of Education

27 Cal. 2d 322 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1945

(Payroll Guarantee Association v. Board of Education, ante, p. 197 [ 163 P.2d 433 ].) … That act is controlling, and regulations or terms and conditions made by the board in conflict therewith are invalid. *326 (First Industrial Loan Co. v.

Barto v. Board of Supervisors

135 Cal. 494 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1902

The board of supervisors are a quasi-judicial body, whose duties are prescribed by statute. … The above views are fully sustained by the recent case of McBride v. Newlin, 129 Cal. 36 . The judgment is affirmed.

Richardson v. Board of Education

6 Cal. 2d 583 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1936

(Leymel v. Johnson, 105 Cal. App. 694 [ 288 Pac. 858 ]; Gould v. Santa Ana High School District, 131 Cal. App. 345 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 623 ]; Wood v. Los Angeles City High School District, 6 Cal. … Respondent board acted properly in exacting performance upon plaintiff’s part and in refusing to give him a classification he had not earned.” In support of the above conclusion, reference may also be made to Wood v.

Tilden v. Board of Supervisors

41 Cal. 68 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1871

From this judgment the Board bring this appeal. … The Board, in passing on a claim, acts judicially.

Birch v. Board of Supervisors

191 Cal. 235 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1923

Board of Trustees, 165 Cal. 298 [ 131 Pac. 859 ], See, also, Allison R. M. Co. v. Nevada County, 104 Cal. 161 [ 37 Pac. 875 ] ; Farmers’ etc. Bank v. Board, 97 Cal. 318 , 325 [ 32 Pac. 312 ].) … R. 1277, 121 Pac. 384 ]), and that they can be reviewed by the court (Huntley v. Board of Trustees, supra).

Golden State Milk Products Co. v. Brown

217 Cal. 570 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1933

(See Pasadena Ice Co. v. Reeder, 206 Cal. 697 [ 275 Pac. 944 , 276 Pac. 995 ]; New Method Laundry Co. v. MacCann, 174 Cal. *572 26 [ 161 Pac. 990 , Ann. Cas. 1918C, 1022] ; Dairy Dale Co. v.

McCullough v. Board of Education

51 Cal. 418 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1876

The resolution of the Board of Supervisors assuming to authorize the Board of Education to appropriate *420 a portion of this square for that purpose, though passed in due form, was inoperative, because the Board had no authority … The contract of the Board of Education, upon which the suit is founded, was consequently %Htra vires in the extreme sense, and the plaintiff could derive no rights thereunder, since he was bound to take notice that the Board