Case law

People v. Coleman

46 Cal. 3d 749 · California Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1988

(See, e.g., California v. Brown, supra, 479 U.S. at pp. 541-542 [93 L.Ed.2d at pp. 939-940, 107 S.Ct. at p. 840 ] (plur. opn. by Rehnquist, C. … In People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], reversed on other grounds sub nom. California v.

Woollacott v. Meekin

151 Cal. 701 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1907

v. … (See, also, Brown v. Jenks, 98 Cal. 10 , [ 32 Pac. 701 ].) It is apparent that unless the decisions in Blochman v. Spreckels, 135 Cal. 662 , [ 67 Pac. 1061 ], and Goldtree v.

McIntosh v. State Bar

211 Cal. 261 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1930

(State Bar v. Superior Court, 207 Cal. 323 [ 278 Pac. 432 ]; In re Cate, 207 Cal. 443 [ 279 Pac. 131 ] ; Matter of Shattuck, 208 Cal. 6 [ 278 Pac. 998 ] ; Matter of Richardson, 209 Cal. 492 [ 288 Pac. 669 ].) … The remaining contention is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the findings and the conclusions reached by the Board of Governors.

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.

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.

Stone v. Elkins

24 Cal. 125 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

(Saunders v. Haynes, 13 Cal. 152 .) … The provision of the statute purporting to confer this power upon the Board of Supervisors is clearly in conflict with the Article of the Constitution cited, and is therefore void. (Guy v.

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.

Mandracio v. Bartenders Union, Local 41

41 Cal. 2d 81 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 1953

Dotson v. International Alliance etc., Employes, 34 Cal.2d 362 [ 210 P.2d 5 ] ; James v. Marinship Corp., 25 Cal.2d 721 [ 155 P.2d 329 , 160 A.L.R. 900 ].) … (Bagdasarian v. Gragnon, 31 Cal.2d 744, 752 [ 192 P.2d 935 ] .)

Carpenter v. State Bar

210 Cal. 520 · California Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1930

It appears, however, that on December 20, 1928, the order appealed from was affirmed by this court (Howe v. Howe, 206 Cal. 1 [ 272 Pac. 751 ]). It became final and remittitur issued on January 21, 1929. … It is ordered that the action and recommendation of the board of governors in this matter be and it is hereby approved and that petitioner herein, A. H.

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 ].)

Duncan v. Ramish

142 Cal. 686 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1904

(Stats. 1891 196; French v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 181 U. S. 324 ; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345 ; Brown v. Drain. 187 U. S. 635 .) In support of their position the appellants rely on the case of Norwood v. … In Brown v.

California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland

222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2017

(E.g., Rossi v. Brown (1995) 9 Cal.4th 688, 695 (Rossi); Associated Home Builders, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 591.) … (See Rossi v. Brown (1995) 9 Cal.4th 688, 699–705 (Rossi); maj. opn., ante, at p. 9.)

Storke v. Goux

129 Cal. 526 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1900

He failed to qualify as such district attorney, and thereafter was ap *527 pointed to the office by the board of supervisors. … This question upon principle is not to be distinguished from that decided in Larew v.

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.

Seneris v. Haas

45 Cal. 2d 811 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1955

Hoefflin further testified that if an anesthetist was found to be unsatisfactory, the medical executive committee, as gOA'erning board of the medical staff, recommended to the board of directors of the hospital that action … (See Brown v. La Societe Francaise, 138 Cal. 475 [ 71 P. 516 ] ; Inderbitzen v. Lane Hospital, 124 Cal.App. 462, 466 [ 12 P.2d 744 , 13 P.2d 905 ] ; Bowman v. Southern Pac.

Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glens Falls Insurance Co.

121 Cal. 167 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1898

(Citing Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 671.) There Is no merit in this point. … (Citing Soule v.

People v. Mattison

4 Cal. 3d 177 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1971

A short time later Hammond saw decedent with an 8-inch-high brown bottle. Decedent then poured some of the contents of the bottle into a glass, squeezed an orange into it and tasted the mixture. … The article had been posted on the prison bulletin board, and the prosecution wished to show that the witnesses were intimidated by the possibility of retaliation from other inmates who had read about their involvement in

Dowling v. Conniff

103 Cal. 75 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1894

(Act of March 18, 1885, sec. 11; Stat. 1885, p. 147; Himmelmann v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 276 ; Frick v. Morford, 87 Cal. 576 ; McDonald v. Conniff, 99 Cal. 386 ; Perine v. Erzgraber, 102 Cal. 234 .) 2. … But this point is fully answered in the cases of McDonald v. Conniff, 99 Cal. 386 , and Perine v. Erzgraber, 102 Cal. 234 .

United Railroads of S.F. v. Colgan

153 Cal. 53 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1908

(See San Francisco & San Mateo etc. v. Scott, 142 Cal. 222 , [ 75 Pac. 575 ].) … such state board of all the property in both counties was much lower than the valuation by the San Francisco authorities of that portion claimed to be assessable by them.

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.