Case law

Durbin v. State Bar

23 Cal. 3d 461 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1979

(Lyons v. Superior Court (1955) 43 Cal.2d 755, 759 [ 278 P.2d 681 ].) … State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 893, 904 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 544 P.2d 921 ]), although the recommendation of the disciplinary board is entitled to great weight (Inniss v.

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.

Drumgo v. Superior Court

8 Cal. 3d 930 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1973

Our established rule conforms with those of the federal courts (e.g., Brown v. Craven (9th Cir. 1970) 424 F.2d 1166, 1170 ; United States v. Burkeen (6th Cir. 1966) 355 F.2d 241, 245 ; Tib bett v. … (See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123-126 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 465 P.2d 44 ]; Brown v. Craven, supra, 424 F.2d 1166, 1169-1170 .) The only justification ever suggested, a lack of any knowledge of Mr.

People v. Sanders

51 Cal. 3d 471 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1990

Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ]). … (People v. Myers, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 276 (lead opn. by Grodin, J.); see, e.g., People v. Bonin, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 856 ; People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 541 .)

Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach

46 Cal. 3d 736 · California Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1988

(See City of Port Hueneme v. … (b), that board member’s operation for profit of a private preschool facility conflicts with his duties as a member of the board].)

French v. Teschemaker

24 Cal. 518 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1864

In Warren et al. v. … In Robinson v.

Empire Securities Co. v. Matthews

179 Cal. 239 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1918

(Duncan v. Ramish, 142 Cal. 686, 692 , [76 Pac. 661]; Brown v. Drain, 112 Fed. 582 , affirmed, 187 U. S. 635 , [ 47 L. Ed. 343 , 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 842].) … (Duncan v. Ramish, supra.) In each of the cases cited above, the property owner, having failed to appeal, attempted to prove in another proceeding that the assessment in fact exceeded the benefit.

Doyle v. Giuliucci

62 Cal. 2d 606 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1965

Proc., § 1294; Laufman v. Hall-Mack Co., 215 Cal.App.2d 87, 88 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 829 , 94 A.L.R.2d 1068 ].) … See also, Millsaps v. Estes, 137 N.C. 535 [ 50 S.E. 227 , 107 Am.St.Rep. 496 , 70 L.R.A. N.S. 170].

Taylor v. State Bar

11 Cal. 3d 424 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1974

(Himmel v. State Bar, 4 Cal.3d 786, 794 (4) [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 484 P.2d 993 ].) … (Lewis v. State Bar, 9 Cal.3d 704, 714 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 511 P.2d 1173 ]; Mrakich v. State Bar, 8 Cal.3d 896, 906 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 506 P.2d 633 ].)

Miller v. County of Kern

150 Cal. 797 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1907

Soc. v. San Francisco, 131 Cal. 356 , [ 63 Pac. 1013 ], and Columbia Sav. Bank v. … It is fully supported by the decisions in similar cases: Buswell v. Supervisors, 116 Cal. 354 , [ 48 Pac. 226 ]; People v. Eureka etc. Co., 48 Cal. 146 ; Hart v. Plum, 14 Cal. 155 ; Payne v.

Pearlin v. State Bar

59 Cal. 2d 834 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1963

Petitioner seeks a review of the recommendation of the Board of Governors that he be disbarred. … (Pearlin v. State Bar, 18 Cal.2d 682 [ 117 P.2d 341 ].) He was reinstated in 1946.

Blair v. State Bar

27 Cal. 3d 407 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1980

(See, e.g., Athearn v. State Bar (1977) 20 Cal.3d 232, 236 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 171 , 571 P.2d 628 ] [waiver by failing to object to admission of bank records].) … (See, e.g., Fielding v. State Bar (1973) 9 Cal.3d 446, 451-452 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 561 , 509 P.2d 193 ], and cases cited.)

San Diego County v. Riverside County

6 Cal. Unrep. 170 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1898

v. … In Orange Co. v.

Flores v. Fitzgerald

204 Cal. 374 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1928

(Reaugh v. Cudahy Packing Co., 189 Cal. 335, 336 [ 208 Pac. 125 , 128] ; Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 201 Cal. 57 [ 255 Pac. 500 ].) … ), that boards of supervisors were authorized to legislate upon the subject.

City of Pasadena v. Chamberlain

192 Cal. 275 · California Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1923

Board of Supervisors, 109 Cal. 152 [ 41 Pac. 864 ]; Morgan v. City of Los Angeles, 182 Cal. 301 [ 187 Pac. 1050 ]). In the case of Law. v. … We must, however, look at the substance rather than the form, and the situation presented here is no different in substance from those considered in Law v. San Francisco, supra, and City of Long Beach v.

L.A. All. for Survival v. City of Los Angeles

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2000

Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred. For the latter proposition, the Ninth Circuit cited Xiloj-Itzep v. … (E.g., Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745-746 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ] [applying 1st Amend, standards in defamation action under art. I, § 2].)

Justice v. Ott

87 Cal. 530 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1891

(Brown v. Chase, 4 Mass. 436 ; Raymond v. Sawyer, 37 Me. 406 ; Robinson v. Hersey, 60 Me. 225 ; Coombs v. Janvier, 31 N. J. L. 240; Van Horn v. Hann, 39 N. J. L. 207; Steel v. Young, 4 Watts, 459 ; Fox v. … (Gronfier v. Puymirol, 19 Cal. 632 .) And if deemed expedient, the court might also have appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the incompetent. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 372.)

Stuttmeister v. Superior Court

71 Cal. 322 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1886

“A writ Of review [certiorari] may be granted by any court, except a Police or Justice’s Court, when an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board … (People v. Shepard, 28 Cal. 117 ; People v. Turner, 1 Cal. 153 ; Clary v. Hoagland, 13 Cal. 173 ; Newman v. Superior Court, 62 Cal. 543 ; Golden Gate H. M. Co. v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. 187 ; Slavonic M. B.

Moss v. Moss

20 Cal. 2d 640 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1942

(Brown v. Brown, 8 Cal. App. (2d) 364 [ 47 P. (2d) 352 ]; Newman v. Freitas, 129 Cal. 283 [ 61 Pac. 907 , 50 L. R. A. 548]; Pereira v. Pereira, 156 Cal. 1 [ 103 Pac. 488 , 134 Am. St. Rep. 107 , 23 L. R. A. (N. … (Communist Party v. Peek, ante, p. 536 [-P. (2d)-]; City of Alturas v. Gloster, 16 Cal. (2d) 46 [ 104 P. (2d) 810 ]; Stenzel v. Kronick, 102 Cal. App. 507 [ 283 Pac. 93 ]; Rapaport v. Forer, 20 Cal.

Miles v. McDermott

31 Cal. 271 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

The first point is that the resolution of intention was not published for a period of ten secular days before the resolution directing the work to be done was passed, and that, therefore, the Board of Supervisors had acquired … The same question arose in Taylor v. Palmer, ante, p. 240.