Case law

California Southern Hotel Co. v. Russell

88 Cal. 277 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1891

The board of directors of the corporation made calls for the payment of the full amount of the subscriptions, in installments of twenty per cent each. … Co. v. Schwartz, 53 Cal. 106 ; see also Am. Law Reg. 7, and cases cited.) But it very clearly appears that the condition was not complied *281 with, for two reasons: 1.

Melone v. State

51 Cal. 549 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1876

By the Court: This action was brought for the recovery of the salary provided by law for the Secretary of State as a member of the State Board of Examiners. Upon the grounds on which it was held in Love v. … Baehr ( 47 Cal. 364 ), that the Attorney-General was entitled to a salary as a member of the same board, we are of the opinion that the Secretary of State is entitled to the salary provided for by section 684 of the Political

People v. Easley

34 Cal. 3d 858 · California Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1983

The affidavit stated that the affiant contacted Brown and asked him for the cousin’s name. Brown said the cousin was Easley. … doubt on Brown’s credibility.

Browning v. Reclamation District No. 108

200 Cal. 800 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1927

THE COURT Upon the grounds stated, and for the reasons set forth in Hershey et al. v. Reclamation District No. 108 et al., ante, p. 550 [ 254 Pac. 542 ], and in Browning v.

Doeg v. Cook

126 Cal. 213 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1899

The defendants are the town marshal, who is also ex officio street commissioner, his bondsmen, and the individuals composing the board of town trustees. … San Joaquin Co., 21 Cal. 426; Winbigler v. Los Angeles, 45 Cal. 36 ; Chope v. Eureka, 78 Cal. 588 ; 12 Am. St. Rep. 113 ; Arnold v.

Mosesian v. State Bar

8 Cal. 3d 60 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1972

The burden is upon one seeking a review of a recommendation of the disciplinary board to show that its findings are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Walter v. … (Reznik v. State Bar, supra, 1 Cal.3d 198, 203-204 (4, 6); Scofield v. State Bar, 62 Cal.2d 624, 628 [3] [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 401 P.2d 217 ]; McKinney v.

Gantner v. Gantner

38 Cal. 2d 691 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1952

In Gantner v. … In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, this court clearly has the power in custody matters “to protect the subject matter of the order or judgment appealed from during the pendency of such appeal. ’' (In re Browning

People v. Anderson

64 Cal. 2d 633 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1966

(People v. Ketchel, 59 Cal.2d 503, 523 [10] [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ] ; People v. Kendrick, 56 Cal.2d 71, 90 [18] [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 13 , 363 P.2d 13 ] ; People v. … People v. Chavez, 37 Cal.2d 656 . 668 [6] [ 234 P.2d 632 ] ; People v. Chapman. 207 Cal.App.2d 557, 578 [22] [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 568 ] ; People v.

In Re Jones

5 Cal. 3d 390 · California Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1971

(Feinstein v. State Bar, supra, 39 Cal.2d p. 547.) … The board struck this finding and made a general finding that “The record reflects no mitigating circumstances.” 6 Bordner v.

Marks v. Weinstock, Lubin & Co.

121 Cal. 53 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1898

And it is also said: “And defendant further alleges that” in June, 1894, the board of trustees of the city of Sacramento adopted an ordinance, a copy of which is set out, which authorized and justified its action. … (Patterson v. Board of Supervisors, 50 Cal. 344 ; Parrott v. Floyd, 54 Cal. 534 ; White v. Nunan, 60 Cal. 406 ; Grannis v. Lorden, 103 Cal. 472 .)

In Re Bloom

19 Cal. 3d 175 · California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1977

{Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 888 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 544 P.2d 929 ]; *180 Bradpiece v. State Bar (1974) 10 Cal.3d 742, 748 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 518 P.2d 337 ].) … (See Barreiro v. State Bar (1970) 2 Cal.3d 912, 925 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 192 , 471 P.2d 992 ]; Coviello v. State Bar (1955) 45 Cal.2d 57, 65 [ 286 P.2d 357 ].)

County of Los Angeles v. Eikenberry

131 Cal. 461 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1901

It is next urged that the ordinance is void for the reason that it attempts to license the sales and not the business, and we are referred to the case of Merced County v. Helm, 102 Cal. 159 . … It has been said that the rule in Merced County v. Helm, supra, went to the extreme verge of strictness, and the court has been disposed to limit rather than extend its application.

Facebook, Inc. v. City of S.F.

233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 2018

Moreno v. … S. v.

Roehm v. County of Orange

32 Cal. 2d 280 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1948

(San Jose Gas Co. v. January, 57 Cal. 614 ; Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 ; Stockton Gas & Electric Co. v. … (See Pacific Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.2d 611 [ 67 P.2d 335 ]; Weber v. County of Santa Barbara, 15 Cal.2d 82, 85 [ 98 P.2d 492 ].)

Efford v. S. Pac. Coast R.R.

52 Cal. 277 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

(San Mateo Water Works v. Sharp-stein, 50 Cal. 284 ; Sanborn v. Belden, 51 Cal. 266 .) Stewart <6 Greathouse, for the Eespondent. … Godey, 39 Cal. 167 ; McCreery v. Brown, 42 Cal. 462 ; Rogers v. Tennant, 45 Cal. 186 ; Patterson v. Supervisors, 50 Cal. 345 .)

Skinner v. Hall

69 Cal. 195 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1886

for her board and that of the child. … (Ackley v. Chamberlain, 16 Cal. 181 ; Phelps v. Rooney, 9 Wis. 70 .)

Woodcock v. Dick

36 Cal. 2d 146 · California Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1950

(Fidler v. Board of Trustees, 112 Cal.App. 296, 302-303 [ 296 P. 912 ]; McKann v. Town of Irvington, 133 N.J.L. 63 [ 42 A.2d 391 ]; Buckbee v. … Board of Education, 115 App.Div. 366 [ 100 N.Y.S. 943, 949 ], affd. 187 N.Y. 544 [ 80 N.E. 1106 ]; Abrams v. La Guardia, 174 Misc. 421 [ 21 N.Y.S.2d 891 ].)

Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc.

36 Cal. 2d 734 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1951

The rule-making power of the board was upheld in Sandstrom v. Cal. … In Greenberg v.

Clarke v. Fitch

41 Cal. 472 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1871

(Wilson v. Fitch, decided at the present term.) But the want of a colloquium cannot be supplied by an innuendo. … (Nichols v. Packard, 16 Vt. 83 ; Brown v. Brown, 2 Shepley Me. R. 317; Harris v. Burley, 8 N. H. 256; Linville v. Earlywine, 4 Blackf. 169 ; Tappan v. Wilson, 7 Ohio R. 190.)

Zeilenga v. Nelson

4 Cal. 3d 716 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1971

(See Board of Education v. Watson (1966) 63 Cal.2d 829, 832 [ 48 Cal. Rptr. 481 , 409 P.2d 481 ].) As said in Rees v. … Co. v.