Case law

City St. Improvement Co. v. Kroh

158 Cal. 308 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1910

W. 7 ]; Andrews v. Board, 7 Idaho, 457 , [ 63 Pac. 592]; Gage v. New York, 110 App. Div. 403 , [ 97 N. Y. Supp. 157 ]; McBrian v. Grand Rapids, 56 Mich. 99 , [ 22 N. W. 206 ], 11 Cyc. 481; 20 Am. & Eng. … E. 885 ], In Inge v. Board, 135 Ala. 202 , [ 93 Am. St. Rep. 20 , 33 South. 678 ], the work had not been performed and the suit was instituted by taxpayers to restrain its performance.

Seven Up Bottling Co. of Los Angeles v. Grocery Drivers Union Local 848

49 Cal. 2d 625 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1958

Leave to amend was denied on the ground that even though the plaintiff’s business affected interstate commerce the state court could exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the National Board. In Garmon v. … (See also San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26 [ 77 S.Ct. 607 , 1 L.Ed.2d 618 ]; Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U.S. 20 [ 77 S.Ct. 604 , 1 L.Ed.2d 613 ]; Guss v.

Cosgriff v. Bd. of Election Commr's of S.F.

151 Cal. 407 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1907

This is an original proceeding in mandamus to compel the board of election commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, and G. P. … (Misch v. Mayhew, 51 Cal. 514 ; Hagenmeyer v. Mendocino County, 82 Cal. 217 , [ 23 Pac. 14 ] ; Derby v. Modesto, 104 Cal. 522 , [ 38 Pac. 900 ] ; Bates v. Howard, 105 Cal. 182 , [ 38 Pac. 715 ] ; Bellmer v.

Epperson v. Jordan

12 Cal. 2d 61 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1938

and which board is hereby created”. … It was these short titles, prepared by the proponents of the measures, that were held legally insufficient in Boyd v. Jordan and Clark v. Jordan, supra.

Hayward v. Manzer

70 Cal. 476 · California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1886

(Tate v. City of Sacramento, 50 Cal. 242 .) … (People v. Williams, 64 Cal. 498 -502; San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 542 -548; San Francisco v. Calderwood, 31 Cal. 589 ; Washburn on Easements, 132; Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 647 ; Child v. Chappel, 9 N. Y. 257 .)

In Re Sandel

64 Cal. 2d 412 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1966

(People v. Sama (1922) supra, 189 Cal. 153, 156-157 .) … Finally, by supplementary petition he charges the use against him of statements assertedly taken in violation of the rules of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [ 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 ], and People v.

Cummins, Inc. v. SC

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 703 · California Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2003

4 Cal.Rptr.3d 703 (2003) 76 P.3d 364 CUMMINS, INC. v. S.C. (COX). No. S117726. Supreme Court of California. September 10, 2003. Tami S. Smason, Leila Nourani, Foley & Lardner, Los Angeles, CA, for Cummins, Inc. … GEORGE, C.J., and KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Morgan v. City of Los Angeles

182 Cal. 301 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1920

*Page 309 A situation very similar to the one presented in the instant case was before this court in the case of Howland v. Board of Supervisors, 109 Cal. 152 , [ 41 P. 864 ]. … State Board of Canvassers (N. D.), 172 N.W. 80 .) The principal cases cited and relied on by the appellants are: City of Santa Rosa v. Bower, 142 Cal. 299 , [ 75 P. 829 ]; Law v.

Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre

105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 214 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 2001

(See Brown v. Superior Court (1949) 34 Cal.2d 559, 566 [ 212 P.2d 878 ]; see also 8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Extraordinary Writs, § 206, p. 997, and cases cited.) … (Sharpell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 230 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ].) 3 The 1987 ordinance (Sierra Madre Ord.

Althof v. Conheim

38 Cal. 230 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

(Maclay v. Love and Wife, 25 Cal. 367 ; Smith v. Greer, 31 Cal. 477 ; Brown v. Orr, 29 Cal. 120 .) … (Rollins v. Forbes, 10 Cal. 299 ; People v. Morrill, 26 Cal. 336 .)

Holtum v. Grief

144 Cal. 521 · California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1904

(Garoutte v. Haley, 104 Cal. 497 ; Brown v. Cline, 109 Cal. 156 .) The condition is therefore an essential part of the order, and the right to revoke it ceases when the power of the court over the order ceases. … This, in view of the decisions in Garoutte v. Haley, 104 Cal. 497 , and Brown v.

Skalko v. City of Sunnyvale

14 Cal. 2d 213 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1939

(Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 Pac. 381 , 38 A. L. R. 1479] ; Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 [47 Sup. Ct. 114, 71 L. Ed. 303 , 54 A. L. R. 1016].) … (Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497 [ 234 Pac. 388 ].)

Lamb v. Wahlenmaier

144 Cal. 91 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1904

App. 164 ; Ehle v. Bingham, 7 Barb. 494 ; Baker v. Stinchfield, 57 Me. 363 ; South and North etc. R. R. Co. v. Heinlein, 56 Ala. 368; Jemvison v. West Springfield, 13 Gray, 544 .) … The same rule is declared in Brown v. Ayer, 24 Ga. 288 ; Brown v. Bradford, 30 Ga. 927 ; Gill v. Morris, 11 Heisk. 614 ;1 Dickason v. Bell, 13 La. Ann. 249 .

Oakland Paving Co. v. Whittell Realty Co.

185 Cal. 113 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1921

The Consolidation Act of 1862 (Stats. 1862, p. 398, subd. 12), after providing for an appeal and authorizing the board of supervisors to correct assessments, provides: “All the decisions and determinations of said Board, … The law of 1871-72, pages 804, 815, section 12, also provided for an appeal to the board of supervisors.

Bib'le v. Committee of Bar Examiners

26 Cal. 3d 548 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1980

(See Packer v. Board of Behavioral Science Examiners (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 190 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 96 ].) … (See Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners (1957) 353 U.S. 232 [ 1 L.Ed.2d 796 , 77 S.Ct. 752 , 64 A.L.R.2d 288 ]; Hackin v.

Bickerdike v. State

144 Cal. 698 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1904

Proc., sec. 1963, subd. 1) in civil as well as in criminal cases (Hunter v. … We have discussed the effect of these certificates, as evidence, in the opinion in the case of Bickerdike v. State of California, ante, p. 681.

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.

Moore v. Thornburg

208 Cal. 657 · California Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1930

Moreover, all of said questions have been expressly or inferentially decided adversely to him in such cases as Tarpey v. MacClure, 190 Cal. 593 [ 213 Pac. 983 ], Palo Verde Irr. Dist. v. … Seeley, 198 Cal. 477 [ 245 Pac. 1092 ], and Wheatley v. Superior Court, 207 Cal. 722 [ 279 Pac. 989 ].

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.

Rains v. County of Contra Costa

37 Cal. 2d 263 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1951

(Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., 26 Cal.2d 716 [ 160 P.2d 816 ]; Allen v. McKinley, 18 Cal.2d 697 [ 117 P.2d 342 ]; Almassy v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Com., 34 Cal.2d 387 [ 210 P.2d 503 ].) … (Perry v. Jordan, 34 Cal.2d 87, 91 [ 207 P.2d 47 ]; Gage v. Jordan, 23 Cal.2d 794 [ 147 P.2d 387 ]; Warner v. Kenny, 27 Cal.2d 627 [ 165 P.2d 889 ]; Hunt v.