Case law

Wolf v. Board of Supervisors

143 Cal. 333 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1904

(Fremont v. Merced Miming Co., 9 Cal. 19 ; Hobbs v. Amador etc. Co., 66 Cal. 161 .)

McAulay v. Board of Supervisors

178 Cal. 628 · California Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1918

approved March 31, 1897, and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, may effectively withdraw from the petition for the organization of such district at any time prior to the presentation of the petition to the board … of supervisors on the date fixed in the published notice for such presentation, with the result that at the time of such presentation they can no longer be considered by the board as petitioners.

Ellis v. Board of Education

27 Cal. 2d 322 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1945

(Payroll Guarantee Association v. Board of Education, ante, p. 197 [ 163 P.2d 433 ].) … That act is controlling, and regulations or terms and conditions made by the board in conflict therewith are invalid. *326 (First Industrial Loan Co. v.

Devine v. Board of Supervisors

121 Cal. 670 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1898

The inquiry is, merely, whether the board of superl visors of Sacramento county can issue bonds of the county to raise funds for the construction of a county road. … The board of supervisors cannot borrow money on bonds of the whole county to expend upon an object for which they are only authorized to expend the funds of a part of the county. In the case of People v.

Richardson v. Board of Education

6 Cal. 2d 583 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1936

(Leymel v. Johnson, 105 Cal. App. 694 [ 288 Pac. 858 ]; Gould v. Santa Ana High School District, 131 Cal. App. 345 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 623 ]; Wood v. Los Angeles City High School District, 6 Cal. … Respondent board acted properly in exacting performance upon plaintiff’s part and in refusing to give him a classification he had not earned.” In support of the above conclusion, reference may also be made to Wood v.

Page v. Board of Supervisors

85 Cal. 50 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1890

An election held without authority of law gives no title to office (People v. *55 Church, 6 Cal. 76 ; People v. Mathewson, 47 Cal. 442 ; Kenfield v. Irwin, 52 Cal. 164 ; People v. … (People v. Thompson, 67 Cal. 627 .)

DeWitt v. Board of Supervisors

53 Cal. 2d 419 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1960

Com. v. Agricultural etc. Com., 17 Cal.2d 204, 209 [ 109 P.2d 918 ]; Heap v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal.2d 405, 407 [ 57 P.2d 1323 ] ; Vernon v. Board of Supervisors, 142 Cal. 513, 516 [ 76 P. 253 ] ; Williams v. … (See Imperial Water Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 162 Cal. 14, 18 [ 120 P. 780 ]; Hammond Lbr. Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 85 Cal.App.2d 568, 570-571 [ 193 P.2d 503 ].)

Brown v. San Francisco Gas Light Co.

58 Cal. 426 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

Peachey v. Board of Supervisors

59 Cal. 548 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1881

It was, therefore, the duty of the Board of Supervisors of Calaveras county to “estimate and allow” the relator’s salary. Let a peremptory writ of mandamus issue, as prayed for. Sharpstein and Thornton, JJ., concurred.

McClelland v. Board of Supervisors

30 Cal. 2d 124 · California Supreme Court · May 21, 1947

Instances in which the courts of this state have reviewed by certiorari the actions of local boards of equalization may be found in Huntley v. Board of Trustees (1913), 165 Cal. 298 [ 131 P. 859 ] and Birch v. … Oil Co. v. Byram (1944), supra, 25 Cal.2d 353, 356-357 ) or held to be beyond the board’s jurisdiction in any sense of the word.

Peck v. Board of Supervisors

90 Cal. 384 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1891

Boards of supervisors have general supervision over the roads within their respective counties. … It is not stated in the petition, and it in no way appears therefrom, that the obstructed road had not been abandoned and discontinued by the respondent board. 2.

Ruggles v. Board of Trustees

88 Cal. 430 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1891

But section 752 contains a proviso that the first board of trustees “ elected under the provisions of this act shall at their first meeting so classify themselves by lot as that three of their number shall go out of office … It cannot be denied that the respondents are embraced by the terms of this proviso, for unquestionably they are the first board of trustees elected under the provisions of this act.

Larkin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

62 Cal. 4th 152 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 2015

Brown re Sen. Bill No. 1427 (1959 Reg. Sess.) … (Harrott v.

Vernon v. Board of Supervisors

142 Cal. 513 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1904

Board, etc., 18 Cal. 703 ; Estey v. Starr, 56 Vt. 693, 694 , and cases cited); and a fortiori this would seem to be true of boards of supervisors in this state. … Board, etc., 59 Cal. 700 ; Page v. Board of Supervisors, 85 Cal. 50 ; Rowland v. Kreyenhagen, 24 Cal. 59 ; Vance v. Pena, 36 Cal. 328 ; Trumpler v. Trumpler, 123 Cal. 252 .) But this point we will leave undetermined.

McCulloch v. Franchise Tax Board

61 Cal. 2d 186 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1964

The theory of the Franchise Tax Board fails for two reasons. … Brooke v.

Webster v. Board of Education

140 Cal. 331 · California Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1903

deliberations of said board”; and that respondents refused to allow said Kingsbury to so sit and act with them, or to participate in the proceedings and deliberations of the board in the place of appellant. … (See Lathrop v. Brittain, 30 Cal. 680 ; Swinnerton v.

Brown v. Republic Productions, Inc.

26 Cal. 2d 874 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1945

The controlling issue in this case is basically the same as that of Brown v.

Huntley v. Board of Trustees

165 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1913

Bank v. Board of Equalization, 97 Cal. 325 , [ 32 Pac. 312 ].) … Co. v.

S. H. Harmon Lumber Co. v. Brown

165 Cal. 193 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1913

It occupies all of the Brown lot and the northerly ten feet of the Doran lot. Neither Brown nor Mrs. … In Evans v.

Allen v. Board of Administration

34 Cal. 3d 114 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1983

(Betts v. Board of Administration, supra, 21 Cal.3d 859, 863 ; see Kern v. City of Long Beach (1947) 29 Cal.2d 848, 853 [ 179 P.2d 799 ].) … Respondents contend, however, that the foregoing rationale of Lyon has been weakened by our subsequent decision in Betts v. Board of Administration, supra, 21 Cal.3d 859 .