Case law

Gomez v. Superior Court

54 Cal. 4th 293 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2012

(See, e.g., Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners (1943) 21 Cal.2d 790, 797.) … (Coleman v.

Estate of Platt

21 Cal. 2d 343 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1942

West Sacramento Co., 189 Cal. 7, 17 [ 207 P. 527 ]; Estate of Thomson, 165 Cal. 290 [ 131 P. 1045 ]; Mitchel v. Brown, 43 Cal.App.2d 217 [ 110 P.2d 456 ]; Wall v. Equitable Life Assur. … West Sacramento Co., 189 Cal. 7, 17 [ 207 P. 527 ]; Estate of Thomson, 165 Cal. 290 [ 131 P. 1045 ]; Mitchel v. Brown, 43 Cal.App.2d 217 [ 110 P.2d 456 ]; Wall v. Equitable Life Assur.

Hale v. Akers

69 Cal. 160 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1886

(Teschmacher v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 27 .) … This was said in Henshaw v.

People v. Royce

106 Cal. 173 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1895

In Commonwealth v. … People v.

Abbott v. Hartley

143 Cal. 484 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1904

(Minor v. Kidder, 43 Cal. 229 .) … McKune, 12 Cal. 352 ; Sprague v. Norway, 31 Cal. 173 ; Hayes v. Kirkwood, 136 Cal. 400 , and Kenworthy v. Mast, 141 Cal. 268 , in which cases it was held that the specific irregularities did not vitiate the election.

People v. Guzman

45 Cal. 3d 915 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1988

Rptr. 849 , 729 P.2d 115 ], our concern in People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal. … In People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal. Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ] and People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222 [ 232 Cal.

Burke v. Koch

75 Cal. 356 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1888

(Whitmore v. Rupe, 65 Cal. 238 ; Brown v. Johnson, 45 Cal. 76 .) … (Goodwin v. Hammond, 13 Cal. 168 ; Swinford v. Rogers, 23 Cal. 233 .)

Lukens v. Nye

156 Cal. 498 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1909

In People v. Board, 75 N. Y. 42 , the salary of the police surgeon was fixed by law at twenty-two hundred and fifty dollars. … In Board of Education v. Common Council, 128 Cal. 369 , [ 60 Pac. 976 ], a tax had been levied and had been paid by many of the taxpayers.

People v. Grant

45 Cal. 3d 829 · California Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1988

(California v. Brown, supra, 479 U.S. 538 [ 107 S.Ct. 837 ].) … (See California v. Brown, supra, 479 U.S. 538, 542 [ 107 S.Ct. 837, 840 ].)

People v. Edwards

54 Cal. 3d 787 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1991

(People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 541-542, fn. 13.) … (People v. Brown, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 448-449.) 7.

Superior Court v. County of Mendocino

13 Cal. 4th 45 · California Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1996

Millholen v. … Mallett v.

Ex Parte Roach

104 Cal. 272 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1894

of Lucerne township in that county, *274 upon a complaint charging him with having, on the 18th of April, 1894, sold at his saloon in the city of Hanford certain intoxicating liquor, in violation of an ordinance of the board … (State v. Clarke, 54 Mo. 17 ; 14 Am. Rep. 471 ; State v. Clarke, 25 N. J. L. 54; St. Johnsbury v. Thompson, 59 Vt. 301 ; 59 Am. Rep. 731 ; Daw v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 12 Com. B., N.

Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson

19 Cal. 2d 104 · California Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1941

In a very recent decision of the Board of Tax Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a proceeding entitled “Post Exchange, The Army War College v. … The Board realizes that there are authorities opposed to this ruling, but believes that the reasoning of the decisions which support the Board’s conclusion is more persuasive.

Egan v. State Bar

10 Cal. 2d 458 · California Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1938

Under our decision in Allen v. State Bar, 218 Cal. 19, 26 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 107 ], this statement is not properly a part of the record in this proceeding. … (Allen v. State Bar, supra.) The facts, as they appear from the record, are as follows: Petitioner was employed in October, 1931, by Mrs.

City of Cotati v. Cashman

124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 519 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2002

BROWN, J. I concur in the judgment. For the reasons offered in part C., the City of Cotati’s suit did not arise from the owners’ suit. (See also Navellier v. … Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 98-100 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 530 , 52 P.3d 703 ] (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).) Accordingly, the majority’s other grounds are dicta, which we need not address. Baxter, J., and Chin, J., concurred.

Marlowe v. State Bar

63 Cal. 2d 304 · California Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1965

Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the board erred in its conclusion. (Linnick v. State Bar (1964) 62 Cal.2d 17, 19 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 396 P.2d 33 ].) He has not met that burden. … This finding was not included in the findings of th§ local committed but was added by the Board of Governors, Ohelia Williams v. Bernice Marlowe and B. Marlowe, Alameda County Superior Court No. 313717.

Carpenteria School District v. Heath

56 Cal. 478 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

In Bryant v. … Corp. § 510; Klinkener v. School District, 11 Pa. St. 444.)

Hughes v. Ewing

93 Cal. 414 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1892

(Bates v. Gregory, 89 Cal. 387 .) … The case of Richards v.

Ault v. Council of City of San Rafael

17 Cal. 2d 415 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1941

AULT, Petitioner, v. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL et al., Respondents. S. F. No. 16544. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. February 19, 1941. Lionel Browne for Petitioner. … (Rogers v. Board of Directors, 218 Cal. 221 [22 PaCal.2d 509]; Fawkes v. City of Burbank, 188 Cal. 399 [ 205 P. 675 ]; Clough v. Baber, 38 Cal.App.2d 50 [100 PaCal.2d 519]; DeBrincat v.

Kelly v. Luning

76 Cal. 309 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1888

At that time the proceedings of the board of supervisors had no relation to it. … We are of opinion that this case falls within the doctrine announced in People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 23 ; 21 Am. Rep. 677 ; Brady v. King, 53 Cal. 45 .