Case law

State v. McCauley

15 Cal. 429 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

Woolseley, 1 Term R. 678; Macbeath v. Haldimand, Id. 172; Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 Cranch. R. 345.) “ Where a contract,” says the Supreme Court of Maine, in Stinchfield v. … Silk, 5 East. 449; Mason v. Bovet, 1 Denio, 69, 74 ; Reed v. Blandford, 2 Young & J. 278; Turnpike Company v. Commonwealth, 2 Watts, 433 .)

Schaezlein v. Cabaniss

135 Cal. 466 · California Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1902

Thus says the supreme court of the United States, in Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. … (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 .)

Tripp v. Swoap

17 Cal. 3d 671 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1976

(Mass v. Board of Education, supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. 625 .) … (Mass v. Board of Education, supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. 626 .)

Chico Bridge Co. v. Sacramento Transportation Co.

123 Cal. 178 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1898

It follows that the board of supervisors had jurisdiction to grant the franchise to plaintiff’s assignor. … This rule was quoted and approved in Judson v. Giant Powder Co., 107 Cal. 549, 556 ; 48 Am. St. Rep. 146 .

Collier & Wallis, Ltd. v. Astor

9 Cal. 2d 202 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1937

(Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 6 Cal. (2d) 557 [ 59 Pac. (2d) 119 ].) … It has been frequently held that a statute providing for an appeal from an official or board possessing only administrative powers to the superior court is unconstitutional. (Chinn v.

Colton v. Rossi

9 Cal. 595 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

On the fourteenth of June, 1854, the board of trustees passed an ordinance for the opening of a street through the premises of defendants. The board appointed appraisers, who estimated the value at §750. … In the case of McCann v. The County of Sierra, (7 Cal.

Morris v. South San Joaquin Irrigation District

9 Cal. 2d 701 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1937

(Ashton v. Cameron County Water Imp. Dist., 298 U. S. 513 [56 Sup. Ct. 892, 80 L. Ed. 1309 ].) … Dist. v. Gillett, 89 Fed. (2d) 1018.)

People v. Eubanks

14 Cal. 4th 580 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1996

Code, § 26500; Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 228, 240 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 101 ].) Subject to supervision by the Attorney General (Cal. Const., art. V, § 13; Gov. … (See International Business Machines Corp. v. Brown (C.D.Cal. 1994) 857 F.Supp. 1384, 1388-1389 .)

Perkins v. Ralls

71 Cal. 87 · California Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1886

The reasoning of this court in Brown v. Rice, 52 Cal. 491 , is applicable to this case. The judgment should be affirmed. Searls, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred. The Court.

Fremery v. Austin

53 Cal. 380 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1879

If it be conceded that certain items of the tax levy made by the Board of Supervisors—as, for instance, for the Sinking Fund bonds of 1855, or the Sinking Fund bonds of 1858—are invalid, their invalidity does not effect the … property, for the Tax Collector is chargeable with notice of their illegality; but if they desired to recover back any portion of the tax on the ground that the levy for certain of the funds specified in the order of the Board

People v. Hernandez

45 Cal. 4th 295 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 2008

(See U.S. v. Wilson (4th Cir. 2000) 205 F.3d 720 ; Bius v. State (2002) 254 Ga.App. 634 [ 563 S.E.2d 527 ]; State v. Childs (1993) 242 Neb. 426 [ 495 N.W.2d 475 ]; State v. … Asked to describe it further, he said it was a “brown Toyota pickup truck.”

Sayers v. Superior Court of San Francisco

84 Cal. 642 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1890

It is issued only when an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board, or officer, and there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, any … (Wilson v. Board of Supervisors, 3 Cal. 386 ; Lamb v. Schottler, 54 Cal. 319 .)

Wilkinson v. United Railroads of San Francisco

195 Cal. 185 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1924

In Daniel v. Doyle, 135 Ark. 547 [ 204 S. … Co. v. Powers, 149 U. S. 43 [ 37 L. Ed. 642 , 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 748, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes]; Terry v. Jewett, 78 N. Y. 338 ; Chaffee v. Boston etc. R. Co., 104 Mass. 108 ; Hirsch v. New York etc. R.

People v. Antonelli

California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2025

Defendant, along with Frank Stoddard and Ron Brown, devised a plan to rob the partygoers. Brown and Stoddard armed themselves with guns. … Brown and some of the partygoers ensued, during which one partygoer gained control of Brown’s gun and fatally shot him.4 A jury thereafter convicted defendant of, inter alia, Brown’s first degree murder (§ 187, subd.

Cal Pacific Collections, Inc. v. Powers

70 Cal. 2d 135 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1969

Victor (1965) 62 Cal.2d 280, 301 [26] [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 398 P.2d 391 ]; Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equalization (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) … (Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603, 620 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ]; see also Harvey v. Davis (1968) 69 Cal.2d 362, 370 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 444 P.2d 705 ].)

Charnock v. Rose

70 Cal. 189 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1886

The plaintiff denies that the statute conferred any power upon the defendants as a board of water commissioners or otherwise to enter upon his property and deprive or disturb him in its use and enjoyment; and that, even if … (Treadwell v. Yolo County, 62 Cal. 564 ; People v.

Reclamation Dist. No. 17 v. Bonbini

158 Cal. 197 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1910

(Reclamation Dist. v. Sels, 117 Cal. 164 , [ 49 Pac. 131 ]; Reclamation Dist. v. McCullah, 124 Cal. 175 , [ 56 Pac. 887 ].) … In Reclamation Bist. v.

McDonough v. Cooper

179 Cal. 384 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1918

Dist. v. Escondido Seminary, 130 Cal. 128, 133 , [ 62 Pac. 401 ], and held in Bruschi v. Cooper, 30 Cal. … (Chase v. Trout, 146 Cal. 350 , [80 Pac. 81]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560, 568 , [ 89 Pac. 352 ]; Bank of Lemoore v. *387 Fulgham, 151 Cal. 234 , [ 90 Pac. 936 ]; Imperial Land Co. v. Imperial Irr.

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.

Hobbs v. Tom Reed Gold Mining Co.

164 Cal. 497 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1913

(Wait v. Kern, R. M. Co., 157 Cal. 21 , [ 106 Pac. 98 ].) … (Kuhbach v. Irving etc. Co., 220 Pa. St. 431, [20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 185, 69 Atl. 981 ].) In Guthrie v. Harkness, 199 U. S. 153 , [ 50 L. Ed. 131 , 4 Ann. Cas. 433, 20 Sup. Ct.