Case law

Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles

42 Cal. 3d 1020 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1986

Whitfield v. … Section 911.6 provides in full: “(a) The board shall grant or deny the application within 45 days after it is presented to the board.

San Bernardino v. Horton

173 Cal. 396 · California Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1916

Sharon v. Sharon

67 Cal. 185 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1885

Kentucky conferred such jurisdiction upon the Chancery Court by Statute of 1809 (Maguire v. Maguire, 7 Dana, 181 ), Maryland by Statute of 1841, supplemented by statutes passed in 1843 and 1844 (Brown v. Brown, 2 Md. … Such was the nature of the appeals decided by this court in the divorce *213 cases of Bovo v. Bovo, 63 Cal. 77 , and Brown v.

Stowell v. Rialto Irrigation District

202 Cal. 193 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1927

Dist. v. … (Ham v. Grapeland District, 172 Cal. 611, 618 [ 158 Pac. 207 ].)

City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey

236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 835 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 2018

(See Simpson v. … Brown for League of California Cities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent. Orry B. Korb and James R.

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 .)

Watkinson v. Vaughn

182 Cal. 55 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1920

This language has been quoted, or its substance repeated, and the principle enunciated by it applied in a number of subsequent decisions. ( Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 568 , [ 89 P. 352 ]; Board of Education v. … This is settled by the cases of Turrill v. Grattan, 52 Cal. 97 , Dyer v. Miller, 58 Cal. 585 , Mulligan v. Smith, 59 Cal. 206 , and Kahn v. Board, 79 Cal. 396 , [ 21 P. 849 ], and as to that point there is no dispute.

Maidman v. Jewish Publications, Inc.

54 Cal. 2d 643 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1960

Pfaif, entitled ‘Frazier v. Pass’; and “2. It correctly states that a gentile plaintiff was represented by attorney Samuel Maidman who is the chairman of the Administrative Board of the B’nai B’rith Record; and “3. … (Bates v. Campbell, supra, 213 Cal. 438, 442 ; MacLeod v.

Southern Pacific Co. v. City & County of San Francisco

62 Cal. 2d 50 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1964

The board of supervisors honored this request by its Order No. 2599. … Furthermore, in Goodman v. Southern Pac.

Whitley v. Islais Creek Reclamation District

216 Cal. 599 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1932

By virtue also of the prior decision of this court in Islais Creek Reclamation Dist. v. All Persons, supra, he is estopped to question the validity of the creation of the district, or the statutory powers of the board. … (Meyer v. Reclamation Dist. No. 17, supra; Spurrier v. Reclamation Dist. No. 17, 172 Cal. 157 [ 155 Pac. 840 ].)

County of Kings v. County of Tulare

119 Cal. 509 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1898

(American Emigrant Co. v. Adams County, 100 U. S. 61 ; Mills Co. v. Railroad Co., 107 U. S. 557 ; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist, 111 U. S. 701 ; United States v. Louisiana, 127 U. S. 182 .) … (Kimball v. Reclamation Fund Com., 45 Cal. 344 .)

In Re Newell

188 Cal. 762 · California Supreme Court · May 23, 1922

It is a settled rule applicable to such powers given to a board of supervisors by statutes of this character that the determination of the board that the facts exist which make it necessary for an ordinance to take effect … Co. v. San Francisco, 167 Cal. 772 [52 L. R A. (N. S.) 676, 141 Pac. 384 ]; Josselyn v. San Francisco, 168 Cal. 441 [ 143 Pac. 705 ]; Keyes v. San Francisco, 177 Cal. 317 [ 173 Pac. 475 ]; Burr v.

Simmons v. State Bar

70 Cal. 2d 361 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1969

Thus, this court said in Johnstone v. … In Clark v.

Polydoros v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 206 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1998

79 Cal.Rptr.2d 206 (1998) 965 P.2d 724 Michael POLYDOROS, Appellant, v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. et al., Respondents. No. S064868. Supreme Court of California. October 14, 1998. … GEORGE, C.J., and MOSK, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN and BROWN, JJ, concur.

In Re Mize

11 Cal. 2d 22 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1938

The power of a county board of supervisors to change the boundaries of judicial townships under section 4015, Political Code, has been recognized repeatedly. (See, also, sec. 4041.10, Pol. Code; People v. … Chaves, 122 Cal. 134 [ 54 Pac. 596 ], under the County Government Act, Stats. 1893, p. 346; Proulx, v. Graves, 143 Cal. 243 [ 76 Pac. 1025 ]; Osborn v. Board of Supervisors, 27 Cal. App. 85 [ 148 Pac. 970 ]; Deupree v.

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 .)

Hatfield v. Levy Brothers

18 Cal. 2d 798 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1941

The floor of the store is a hardwood floor with boards of varying width and running lengthwise. Where the boards join laterally there are “V” shaped grooves about 3/16 inches wide at the top and 9/16 inches deep. … (Morton v. Manhattan Lunch Co., 41 Cal. App. (2d) 70 [ 106 Pac. (2d) 212 ]; Lamb v. Purity Stores, Inc., 119 Cal. App. 690 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 197 ]; Brown v. Holzwasser, Inc., 108 Cal.

Weed v. Maynard

52 Cal. 459 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

(Powers v. Sonoma Co. 32 Cal. 66 ; Miner v. Mechanics' Panic, etc., 1 Peters, 64 ; The Newberg Turnpike Co. v. Miller, 5 J. C. K. 112; Malcom v. Rogers, 5 Cowen, 108.) W. C. Burnett, for the Despondent. … Legislature, the Board did not possess.

Ginns v. Savage

61 Cal. 2d 520 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1964

Com. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 720, 728-729 [6-7] [ 151 P.2d 215 ]; Dillon v. Board of Pension Comrs. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 427, 429-430 [1] [ 116 P.2d 37 , 136 A.L.R. 800 ]; Hermanson v. … Code, § 11521 ; 3 see also Moran v. *526 Board of Medical Examiners (1948) supra, 32 Cal.2d 301, 304 .)

Freedland v. Greco

45 Cal. 2d 462 · California Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1955

Nor is there any contention that either the mortgage or trust deed was a purchase money security and thus controlled by section 580b of the Code of Civil Procedure 2 considered by this court in the recent ease of Brown v. … In Brown v. Jensen, supra, 41 Cal.2d 193, 197 , we held: “These provisions [Code Civ.