Case law

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 .

Rhodehamel v. Civil Service Board

18 Cal. 2d 709 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1941

They cite the same cases that were cited by the San Francisco Civil Service Commission in Allen v. … However, as was pointed out in the Allen v. McKinley opinion, supra, local boards such as the one here involved have only such powers as the people see fit to confer upon them.

Board of Administration v. Glover

34 Cal. 3d 906 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1983

In Brown v. … In the absence of statutory authority, we had rejected that very course in Brown v.

People v. Board of Supervisors

50 Cal. 561 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

taken by the surveyor and treasurer immediately upon the passage of the act, “in order that no delay may occur in the prosecution of the work on said road, ” are wholly inconsistent with the exercise of discretion by the board … The power expressly conferred upon the board, in the eighth section of the act, “to reject any or all bids,” is not inconsistent with this view.

Brown v. '49 & '56 Quartz Mining Co.

15 Cal. 152 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

Domingos v. Board of Supervisors

51 Cal. 608 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

The board were still, under the provisions of that act, to allow or reject the claim, as in other cases, and in determining its validity, they were referred to the general statutes upon the subject. … Among these were the act of March 20, 1855, and the amendment approved April 29, 1857, providing that no member of the board of supervisors should be interested in any contract growing out of, or connected with public works

Grace Corset Co. v. Brown Brothers

203 Cal. 199 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1928

Summons was served on the defendant, Joseph Brown, on September 11, 1925, and on the defendant, Arthur Brown, on the seventeenth day of October following. … As late as October 15th, and before the defendant had employed counsel, plaintiff’s counsel wrote to defendant, Joseph Brown, asking that the matter be adjusted.

California Steam Navigation Co. v. Brown

1 Cal. Unrep. 22 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1856

Riggs v. District Retirement Board

21 Cal. 2d 382 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1942

(Dillard v. City of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.2d 599 [ 127 P.2d 917 ] ; Casserly v. City of Oakland, 215 Cal. 600 [ 12 P.2d 425 ] ; Klench v. Board of Pension Fund Commrs., 79 Cal.App. 171 [249 P.46].) … (Pearce v. Board of Education, 85 N.J.L. 520 [ 89 A. 1026 ].) It is not material that only a portion of the territory of the Culver City School District was annexed by the Los Angeles City School District.

Board of Trustees v. Metzger

8 Cal. 3d 206 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1972

Plaintiff Board relies upon such cases as Palo Verde etc. Sch. Dist. v. … (Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal.2d 546, 553-554 [ 261 P.2d 261 ], quoting with approval from Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 66 Cal.App. 157, 168 [ 225 P. 783 ].)

Ordlock v. Franchise Tax Board

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 212 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2006

Subsequently the State Board of Equalization (SBE) denied plaintiffs’ administrative appeal and petition for rehearing. … Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571, 577 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 , 828 P.2d 147 ].)

Beamer v. Franchise Tax Board

19 Cal. 3d 467 · California Supreme Court · May 10, 1977

In State v. … The board cites no clear authority, however, stating that the mere reduction of oil and gas to possession constitutes realization of income. The board relies heavily on Humble Oil & Refining Company v.

Swafford v. Board of Education

127 Cal. 484 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1900

That the board then proceeded to ballot for his successor. That the names of several candidates were proposed, and, upon ballot being taken, plaintiff was elected as successor of said Crawford. … That the salary of plaintiff was paid by warrants drawn by the board of education upon the treasurer of the city of Petaluma.

Allen v. Franchise Tax Board

39 Cal. 2d 109 · California Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1952

The plaintiff brought this action against the Franchise Tax Board, substituted for Charles J. McColgan, Franchise Tax Commissioner, to recover taxes paid under *111 protest. … (Gartner v. Roth, 26 Cal.2d 184 [ 157 P.2d 361 ].)

Buckman v. Board of Supervisors

37 Cal. 2d 305 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1951

Commission for a further order of reinstatement but was informed upon the denial of her request that the commission could not interfere in administrative matters; that her claim for back pay had been denied by the respondent board

Lucas v. Board of Education

13 Cal. 3d 674 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1975

As Justice Marshall pointed out in his dissenting opinion in Board of Regents v. … Board of Education (1972) 6 Cal.3d 575 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 16 , 493 P.2d 480 ], and Griggs v. Board of Trustees (1964) 61 Cal.2d 93 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 194 , 389 P.2d 722 ].

Stuckenbruck v. Board of Supervisors

193 Cal. 506 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1924

an estimate of the amount of money necessary for the exercise of its purposes and powers for the next ensuing fiscal year; whereupon it shall be the duty of the said board or boards of supervisors to levy and proceed with … In the comparatively recent case of Pixley v.

Fresholtz v. Board of Trustees

208 Cal. 502 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1929

This position is supported by the following authorities: People v. Town of Loyalton, 147 Cal. 774 [ 82 Pac. 620, 622 ]; People v. Los Angeles, 133 Cal. 338 [ 65 Pac. 749 ]; People v. … In the case of People v.

Steele v. Board of Supervisors

62 Cal. 6 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1882

The Court : The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case is sustained on the authority of Reed v. Allison, 10 P. C. L. J. 239, and cases cited therein. Appeal dismissed.

Garretson v. Board of Supervisors

61 Cal. 54 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1882

It is said by petitioner that no “ Rules of Notice ” were prescribed by the County Board as required by Section 9, Article xiii. of the Constitution. … The Code does not require the testimony of witnesses examined before the Board of Supervisors to be reduced to writing.