Case law

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.

Linott v. Rowland

119 Cal. 452 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1897

(McMillan v. Reynolds, 11 Cal. 372 ; Schloss v. White, 16 Cal. 66 ; McKinlay v. Tuttle, 42 Cal. 577 ; People v. Bernal, 43 Cal. 385 .) … (Barber v. Reynolds, 33 Cal. 497 ; Schneider v. Brown, 85 Cal. 205 ; Collins v. Scott, 100 Cal. 446 .)

Wiese v. San Francisco Musical Society

82 Cal. 645 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1890

(Robinson v. Howard, 5 Cal. 428 ; Love v. Waltz, 7 Cal. 250 ; Outram v. Morewood, 3 East, 346; Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 96 ; Bissell v. Spring Valley Township, 124 U. S. *647 225 ; Smith v. … National Bank, 39 Kan. 144 ; Gardner v. Buckbee, 3 Cow. 120 ; 15 Am. Dec. 256 ; Doty v. Brown, 4 N. Y. 71 ; 53 Am. Dec. 350 ; Bouchard v. Diaz, 1 Denio, 238 .)

Sparks v. Berntsen

19 Cal. 2d 308 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1942

(Brown v. Regan, 10 Cal. (2d) 519, 524 [ 75 Pac. (2d) 1063 ]; Redo Y Cia v. First National Bank, 200 Cal. 161, 166 [ 252 Pac. 587 ].) General power to that effect was also recognized in Prager v. … (Brown v. Regan, supra.) A resubmission under somewhat similar circumstances was also approved in Kerrison v. Unger, 135 Cal.

Richter v. Lightston

161 Cal. 260 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1911

For the same reasons no more force attaches to the permit of the board of health to conduct a hotel, which amounts to nothing other than a declaration that the premises are sufficiently sanitary to justify the issuance of … It is finally urged that the ordinance is in conflict with the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States and Barber v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 , [5 Sup. Ct. 357, 28 L.

Peters v. the State Bar

219 Cal. 218 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1933

The motion for transfer was referred by that committee to the Board of Governors. … The petitioner relies on the case of Works v.

Sacramento Bank v. Murphy

158 Cal. 390 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1910

(Weber v. McCleverty, 149 Cal. 316 , [ 86 Pac. 706 ].) Under a deed of trust the land is charged with the payment of the debt, but technically the debt is not a lien upon the land. … (Grant v. Burr, 54 Cal. 298 ; Savings and Loan Society v. Burnett, 106 Cal. 528 , [ 39 Pac. 922 ]; Weber v. McCleverty, 149 Cal. 316 , [ 86 Pac. 706 ]; Travelli .v. Bowman, 150 Cal. 587 , [ 89 Pac. 347 ].)

Willcox v. Edwards

162 Cal. 455 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1912

The legislature shall pass laws to regulate or prohibit the buying or selling of the shares of the capital stock of corporations in any stock board, stock exchange, or stock market under the control of any association. … McCown, 34 Or. 47 , [ 54 Pac. 952 ]; Gilliland v. Phillips, 1 S. C. 155; Hunt v. Robinson, 1 Tex. 748 ; Sayer v. Brown, 7 Ind. Terr. 675, [ 104 S. W. 878 ].

American Co. v. City of Lakeport

220 Cal. 548 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1934

(Veterans’ Welfare Board v. Jordan, 189 Cal. 124 [ 208 Pac. 284 , 22 A. L. R. 1515].) In a similar case, Stanley v. … (See Merced County v. Helm, 102 Cal. 165 [ 36 Pac. 399 ]; Connelly v. San Francisco, 164 Cal. 101 [127 Pac. 834]; Estate of Potter, 188 Cal. 55 [ 204 Pac. 826 ]; Whitmore v. Brown, 207 Cal. 473 [ 279 Pac. 447 ].)

In Re Norwalk Call

62 Cal. 2d 185 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1964

(Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage etc. Appeals Board, supra, 61 Cal.2d 305, 310 .) … (Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Cal.2d 228, 233 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 368 P.2d 101 ]; Werner v. Southern Cal. etc.

Howe v. State Bar

212 Cal. 222 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1931

(Brydonjack v. The State Bar, 208 Cal. 439 [66 A. L. R. 1507, 281 Pac. 1018 ]. See, also, Townsend v. The State Bar, 210 Cal. 362 [ 291 Pac. 837 ].) … We are persuaded to follow the recommendation made by the board of governors.

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. Tideman

57 Cal. 2d 574 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1962

(People v. Brown (1958) 49 Cal.2d 577, 592 [ 320 P.2d 5 ] ; see also, e.g., People v. Amick (1942) 20 Cal.2d 247, 251 [ 125 P.2d 25 ] ; People v. Day (1926) 199 Cal. 78, 83 [ 248 P. 250 ] ; People v. … Overruled, as to its failure to give effect to Penal Code, § 654, in People v. Brown (1958), supra, 49 Cal.2d 577, 592-593 [13].

Jimmy H. v. Superior Court

3 Cal. 3d 709 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1970

(People v. Yeager (1961) 55 Cal.2d 374, 389 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 829 , 359 P. 2d 261 ]; People v. Dotson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 891, 896 ; People v. Wolff (1920) 182 Cal. 728, 732-733 [ 190 P. 22 ].) … (Bruce M. v. Superior Court, supra, 270 Cal.App.2d 566, 572 ; People v. Dotson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 891, 896 ; People v. Renteria, supra, 60 Cal.App.2d 463, 470 ; Richerson v.

Artiglio v. Corning Inc.

76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 479 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1998

Santillo v. … (o)(2); D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 18 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ]). Accordingly, we need not address the other elements of plaintiffs’ section 324A claim.

Payne v. Richardson

189 Cal. 103 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1922

Notes]; State v. Minnesota *105 & International Ry. Co., 106 Minn. 176 [16 Ann. Gas. 426, 118 N. W. 679 ] ; State v. Northwestern Telephone Exch. Co., 107 Minn. 390 [ 120 N. W. 534 ]. … Co. v. Board of Review, 288 Ill. 159 [ 123 N. E. 259 ]; Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Saddle River Township, 96 N. J. L. 40 [ 114 Atl. 157 ]; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Middlekamp, 256 U. S. 226 [ 65 L.

Most v. State Bar

67 Cal. 2d 589 · California Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1967

(In re Urias (1966) 65 Cal.2d 258, 261 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 881 , 418 P.2d 849 ] ; Zitny v. State Bar (1966) 64 Cal.2d 787, 789-790 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 415 P.2d 521 ] ; Schullman v. … In addition to misappropriating over $20,000 of Merl’s funds, petitioner failed to keep proper records to indicate his disposition of trust funds (see Clark v.

Bury v. Young

98 Cal. 446 · California Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1893

In the well considered case of Cook v. Brown, 34 N. … In Prutsman v. Baker, 30 Wis. 650 ; 11 Am. Rep. 592 , Dixon, C. J„, speaking for the court, approved the doctrine cited from Cook v. Brown, 34 N.