Case law

Los Angeles City High School District v. Payne

216 Cal. 588 · California Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1932

To state the issue another way, a school budget was duly prepared by the board of education, approved by the county superintendent of schools and presented to the board of supervisors to be raised by taxation as by law provided … IV, V, VI, VII of part III), providing funds respectively for elementary school districts, junior high school districts, high school districts and junior college districts.

Marvin v. Hodgson

33 Cal. 2d 439 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1949

Defendant states that this view is contrary to that expressed in Pearson Candy Co. v. … (Wernhardt v. Koenig, 60 F.Supp. 709 ; Kells v. Boutross, 184 Misc. 206 [ 53 N.Y.S.2d 734 ]; Claude S. Bennett, Inc., v. Bollinger, 72 Ga.App. 531 [ 34 S.E.2d 563 ].)

People v. Hernandez

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 814 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1999

The cause is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Idaho v. … GEORGE, C.J, KENNARD, CHIN and BROWN, JJ, concur.

Arnold v. Skaggs

35 Cal. 684 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1868

(Baker v. Joseph, 16 Cal. 180 .) As to the witness Covey, the ease not only fails to show diligence in preparing for trial, but shows negligence. … (Jenny Lind Co. v. Bowers, 11 Cal. 194 ; People v. DeLacey, 28 Cal. 590 .) The affidavits of Earl and Knox were not obtained, nor was any. cause shown why they were not.

Druzanich v. Criley

19 Cal. 2d 439 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1942

(See Godfrey v. Brown, 220 Cal. 57 [ 29 Pac. (2d) 165 , 93 A. L. R. 1092]; E llis v. Jewett, 18 Cal. App. (2d) 629 [ 64 Pac. (2d) 432 ]; Cookson v. Fitch, 116 Cal. App. 544 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 27 ]; Queirolo v. … App. 610 [ 300 Pac. 487 ]; Ireland v. Marsden, 108 Cal. App. 632 [ 291 Pac. 912 ]; Crooks v. White, 107 Cal. App. 304 [ 290 Pac. 497 ]; Brown v. Davis, 84 Cal. App. 180 [ 257 Pac. 877 ].)

People v. Hanson

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 58 · California Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2000

Gorey, William V. Ballough and Kyle S. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. BROWN, J. … Hernandez, supra, 19 Cal.4th 835, 850 , 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 , 968 P.2d 465 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.)

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.

Burnham v. Witt

217 Cal. 397 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1933

(Brown v. Canadian etc. Co., 209 Cal. 596 [ 289 Pac. 613 ].) … (Ornbaun v. First Nat. Bank of Cloverdale, 215 Cal. 72 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 470 , 81 A. L. R. 1146].) The judgment is affirmed. Langdon, J., Shenk, J., Seawell, J., Curtis, J., and Waste, C. J., concurred.

Villain v. Civil Service Commission

18 Cal. 2d 851 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1941

So, as stated in City of Napa v. Easterby, 61 Cal. 509 , 520: “We cannot inquire whether this is the best system which could have been adopted. It is the system found in the charter.” … (McGillicuddy v. Civil Service Com., 133 Cal. App. 782 [ 24 Pac. (2d) 942 ]; Powers v. Board of Public Works, 216 Cal. 546 [ 15 Pac. (2d) 156 ]; *859 Rodgers v. Board of Public Works, 208 Cal. 291 [ 281 Pac. 64 ].)

People v. Sierra Buttes Quartz Mining Co.

39 Cal. 511 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1870

The corporation also appeared before the Board of Equalization and complained.of the assessment as too high, 'and the Board thereupon deducted the sum of $150,000 from the valuation of the mine. … Co. v. Starbird, 10 N. H. 123; People v. Potter, 35 Cal. 110 ; First *515 Parish v. Cole, 3 Pick. 232 ; Inhabitants v. String, 5 Hals. 323 ; Dauphin Turnpike Road v. Meyers, 6 S. & R. 12.)

County of Santa Clara v. Branham

77 Cal. 592 · California Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1888

The money was allowed by the state board of examiners for the time necessarily consumed by defendant in delivering the prisoners and insane persons, at the rate of five dollars per day. … In Adams v. San Francisco, 50 Cal. 117 , a similar question was presented.

Morris v. De Celis

51 Cal. 55 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

The premises were confirmed to the city of Los Angeles by the Board of United States Land Commissioners in 1856, and the decree of confirmation became final in 1858 by the dismissal of the appeal taken by the Government to … We lately had occasion to examine this question in the case of Sabichi v. Aguilar ( 43 Cal. 285 ), where the decisions on this point are referred to and this conclusion reached.

Klauber v. Higgins

117 Cal. 451 · California Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1897

In Board of Commrs. v. … St. 300; Board of Commrs. v. McGurrin, 6 Daly, 349 ; Peck v. Weddell, 17 Ohio St. 271 ; State v. Glennon, 3 R. I. 276; Flinn v.

Kuhlemeier v. County of Los Angeles

2 Cal. 2d 257 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1935

(Hermance v. Supervisors of Ulster County, 71 N. Y. 481, 486 ; People v. Forrest, 96 N. Y. 544, 548 ; In re Morewood Realty Holding Co., 241 App. Div. 841 [ 271 N. Y. Supp. 392 , 396].) … In conclusion, we experience no difficulty with the case of Pacific Coast Co. v. Wells, 134 Cal. 471 [ 66 Pac. 657 ], cited by the respondent as being “on all fours with the present case.”

Moura v. State Bar

18 Cal. 2d 31 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1941

Upon hearing the evidence, a local administrative committee adopted findings, which were approved by the Board of Governors, that he should be disbarred. … (Kennedy v. State Bar, 13 Cal. (2d) 236 [ 88 Pac. (2d) 920 ].)

County of Santa Clara v. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n of Santa Clara County, Inc.

3 Cal. 4th 873 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1992

Retirement Board (1954) 42 Cal.2d 795, 798 [ 270 P.2d 12 ]; see also Woods v. … Beck v.

Coleman v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMININISTRATION

52 Cal. 3d 1102 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1991

Section 19996.2(a) Relying on Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985) 470 U.S. 532 [ 84 L.Ed.2d 494 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 ] and Skelly v. … Decisions of the State Personnel Board, an agency of constitutional authority (Skelly v.

Rubin v. American Sportsmen Television Equity Society

40 Cal. 2d 412 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1953

National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111 [ 64 S.Ct. 851 , 88 L.Ed. 1170 ].) … As stated in National Labor Relations Board v.

People v. Lynch

51 Cal. 15 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

As conclusions of law, the court below found that the order of the Board of Trustees, directing the grading and planking was void, because the board did not acquire jurisdiction to make it; that the contract for planking … It is their estimate of the revenue at the time an account is presented which must control the action of the board.” (b.) It is to be observed, also, that in Blanding v.

Green v. Swift

47 Cal. 536 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

(Governor, etc. v. Meredith, 4 Term R. 796.) 4. … (Davidson v. Boston and Maine Railroad, 3 Cush. 91 .)