Case law

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.

Cerf v. Pfleging

94 Cal. 131 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1892

February 7, 1872, the president of the board executed the deed, making no reservation as to streets. … A street mapped might be as good a landmark as a street legally established, and such a conveyance disregarding subdivisions was held in People v.

Stewart v. Engelberg

207 Cal. 595 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1929

Young retired from the board and B. J. Klarman took his place. … (Unruh v. Kauffman, 205 Cal. 238 [ 270 Pac. 440 ].) From these two standpoints at least the judgment is erroneous and it is hereby reversed. Curtis, J., Seawell, J., Richards, J., Waste, C.

Frazier v. Superior Court

5 Cal. 3d 287 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1971

Indeed, at the meeting of the county board of supervisors mentioned above a number of citizens called for laws specifically aimed at hippies, and the board chairman stated, “I know some people will scream about their rights … On this record the case at bar is governed by our decisions in Maine v. *293 Superior Court (1968) supra, 68 Cal.2d 375 , Fain v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 46 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 135 , 465 P.2d 23 ], and People v.

City of Pasadena v. Chamberlain

204 Cal. 653 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1928

(Henshaw v. Foster, 176 Cal. 507 [ 169 Pac. 82 ]; Miller & Lux v. Board of Supervisors, 189 Cal. 255 [208 Pac. 304]; In re Orosi Public Utility District, 196 Cal. 43 [ 235 Pac. 1004 ].) … This question was fully disposed of by this court in the case of Henshaw v.

Lee v. Hanley

61 Cal. 4th 1225 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 2015

Brown, Jr., letter to Governor Edmund G. *1236 Brown, Jr., Aug. 31, 1977, p. 1.) Governor Brown approved Assembly Bill 298 on September 16, 1977. B. … Corp. 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

Wirta v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

68 Cal. 2d 51 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1967

Board of Education (1966) 272 N.Y.S.2d 341, 344-345 ) or because the proposed user would present views "opposed by substantial parts of the public" ( Buckley v. … (See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530 [ 89 L.Ed. 430, 440 , 65 S.Ct. 315 ]; Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 115 [ 87 L.Ed. 1292, 1299 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 146 A.L.R. 81 ]; Board of Education v.

Baldwin v. Railroad Commission

206 Cal. 581 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1929

Assn. v. … (See City of Pasadena v. Railroad Com., 183 Cal. 526 [ 192 Pac. 25 ]; Water Users etc. Assn. v.

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.

Woodroof v. Howes

88 Cal. 184 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1891

(Golson v. Dunlap, 73 Cal. 157 .) And it is hardly necessary to say that the relation which a director sustains to his corporation is fiduciary within the meaning of the rule. … (Heinlen v. Martin, 53 Cal. 342, 343 .) And it is better to reserve the question mentioned until all the circumstances shall have been disclosed by the evidence.

Kaufman v. Court of Appeal

31 Cal. 3d 933 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1982

Mosk v. … See also United States v.

Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. County of Los Angeles

35 Cal. 2d 760 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1950

Plaintiff’s general policy is established by a board of directors, and the administrative operations thereunder are supervised by a board of managers functioning at each branch. … Board of Assessors (1933), 284 Mass. 1 [ 187 N.E. 104, 106 ]; People v. Y.M.C.A. of Chicago (1936), 365 Ill. 118 [ 6 N.E.2d 166, 169 ]; Miami *769 Battlecreek v.

Corn v. State Bar

68 Cal. 2d 461 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1968

The burden is upon one seeking a review of a recommendation of a disciplinary board to show that its findings are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (McKinney v. … (McKinney v. State Bar, supra, 62 Cal.2d 194,196 [5].)

Ex Parte Goodrich

160 Cal. 410 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1911

Comstock then deposes that the board of utilities made its recommendation to the city council, which recommendations included a schedule of charges for the service of supplying electricity, and that the board of utilities … (State v. Burk, 88 Iowa 661 , [ 56 N. W. 180 ]; Richmond v. Supervisors, 83 Va. 204 , [ 2 S. E. 26 ] ; People v. Smith, 78 Hun, 178 [ 28 N. Y. Supp. 912 ].)

Rehfeld v. City & County of San Francisco

218 Cal. 83 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1933

(See Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 [ 234 Pac. 381 , 38 A. L. R 1479]; Jones v. Los Angeles, 211 Cal. 304, 307 [ 295 Pac. 14 ].) … (See Norcross v. Board of Appeal, 255 Mass. 177 [ 150 N. E. 887 ]; Metzenbaum, Law of Zoning, p. 265.) The judgment is reversed. Preston, J., Curtis, J., Shenk, J., Waste, C. J., Seawell, J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

People v. Buckley

116 Cal. 146 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1897

This position is sustained by the cases of People v. English, 52 Cal. 211 , and People v. Fisher, 51 Cal. 319 . … In People v.

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 .

Decker v. Perry

4 Cal. Unrep. 488 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1894

In addition to the eases above cited the following are more or less in point: De Baker v. Carillo, *493 52 Cal. 473 ; Bank v. Chalfant, 52 Cal. 170 ; Bank v. Webber, 52 Cal. 73 ; Bank v. … Chalfant, 51 Cal. 369 ; De Fremery v. Austin, 53 Cal. 381 ; Meek v. McClure, 49 Cal. 623 ; Guy v. Washburn, 23 Cal. 111 ; Dear v. Varnum, 80 Cal. 87 , 22 Pac. 76 .

Murphy v. Curry

137 Cal. 479 · California Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1902

In the case of Eaton v. … Certainly it is a circumstance of no importance that no specific provisions on the subject are to be found in our constitution if, as held in Eaton v. Brown, 96 Cal. 371 , 1 and Britton v.