Case law

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.

Redwood City v. Grimmenstein

68 Cal. 512 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1886

, a marshal, assessor, treasurer, and police justice, and such other officers as are hereafter-authorized to be appointed by said board of trustees. … Brittain, 30 Cal. 680 , goes on the same grounds as People v. Edwards . There is nothing in People v. Love, 25 Cal. 521 , in conflict with what is said herein.

Hatheway v. Industrial Accident Commission

13 Cal. 2d 377 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1939

(Lewis v. Great Western Ry. Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. Div. 195; In re Burns, 218 Mass. 8 [Ann. Cas. 1916A, 787, 105 N. E. 601 ] ; Riley v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 227 Mass. 55 [ 116 N. … Co. v. Industrial Acc.

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.

Garcia v. McCutchen

16 Cal. 4th 469 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1997

In Cooks v. … Colgan (1896) 111 Cal. 580, 585 [ 44 P. 238 ] [requirement that board proceed “ ‘in the manner and method authorized by law’ ” refers “to the manner and method for making improvements provided in the law governing said board

Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World Christianity

46 Cal. 3d 1092 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1988

(Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1, 8 [ 91 L.Ed.2d 711 , 719-720, 67 S.Ct. 504 , 168 A.L.R. 1392 ]; Cantwell v. … (Braunfield v. Brown (1961) 366 U.S. 599, 607 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 563, 568-569 , 81 S.Ct. 1144 ].) Applying these criteria, the Supreme Court has allowed some religious conduct to be banned entirely (see, e.g., Reynolds v.

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.

Carter v. Stevens

211 Cal. 281 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1930

delegation of authority (New York v. … Co. v. Board of Agriculture of North Carolina, 222 U. S. 380 [ 56 L. Ed. 240 , 32 Sup. Ct.

Uhlhorn v. Goodman

84 Cal. 185 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1890

V. … V. Burner.” The instrument made up of the foregoing parts is marked “ Exhibit B.”

CHARLES J. VACANTI v. State Comp. Ins. Fund

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 562 · California Supreme Court · Jan 4, 2001

BROWN, J. This case contains a new twist on the seemingly endless litigation over the scope of workers' compensation exclusivity. … Board of Fire Underwriters (1946) 29 Cal.2d 34, 44 , 172 P.2d 867 ( Speegle ).)

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.

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District v. Public Utilities Commission

62 Cal. 4th 693 · California Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2016

Although the Water Control Board’s Order No. … (See, e.g., People v. Leiva (2013) 56 Cal.4th 498, 506; see also Deal v.

Knell v. Morris

39 Cal. 2d 450 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1952

(See Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation, 23 Cal.2d 256 [ 143 P.2d 929 ] ; McCordic v. Crawford, 23 Cal.2d 1 [ 142 P.2d 7 ] ; Taylor v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 17 Cal.2d 594 [ 110 P.2d 1044 ] ; Snow v. … This principle was recently applied in Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation, 23 Cal.2d 256 [ 143 P.2d 929 ], to hold the owner of premises liable for the defective condition of an elevator.

Bradley v. Davis

156 Cal. 267 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1909

(Hastings v. Keller, 69 Cal. 606 , [ 11 Pac. 218 ]; Daniels v. Church, 96 Cal. 13 , [ 30 Pac. 798 ]; Ludwig v. Harry, 126 Cal. 377 , [ 58 Pac. 858 ].) … Co., 108 Cal. 261 , [ 41 Pac. 472 ]; Bowers v. Modoc etc. Co., 117 Cal. 50 , [ 48 Pac. 979 ]; Brown v. S. F. Sav.

Jameson v. James

155 Cal. 275 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1909

Brown, 70 Cal. 544 , [ 12 Pac. 464 ]; Buckley v. Howe, 86 Cal. 596 , [ 25 Pac. 132 ]; Gage v. Gunther, 136 Cal. 338 , [ 89 Am. St. Rep. 141 , 68 Pac. 710 ].) … It is not claimed by appellants that they, to quote the language of this court in Plummer v. Brown , occupied “such a status as entitled them to control the legal title.”

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.

Pacific Coast Railway Co. v. Ramage

4 Cal. Unrep. 743 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1894

Price, Juan V. Avila, N. Goldtree, H. M. Newhall, John 0’Farrell, F. S. … of the constitution : See Santa Clara Co. v.

Joyce v. Shafer

97 Cal. 335 · California Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1893

Plaintiff bases his claim upon the rule laid down in Cleary v. Folger, 84 Cal. 316 ; 18 Am. St. Rep. 187 ; Drew v. Pedlar, 87 Cal. 443 ; 22 Am. St. Rep. 257 ; and Phelps v. Brown, 95 Cal. 572 .

Ex parte McNulty

77 Cal. 164 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1888

That power could not, as to the case before us, be delegated to the officer or board.” … The authorities upon which the respondent relies, namely, State v. Board, 32 Minn. 324 , In re Smith, 10 Wend. 449 , are not in point so far as the question of crime is concerned.

Bailey v. State Bar of Cal.

209 Cal. 476 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1930

.— This proceeding was instituted for the purpose of reviewing the action of the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California in recommending the disbarment of petitioner as an attorney and counsellor at law in this … Said record further shows that petitioner, after his admission to practice before the courts of this state, accepted a fee from V. H.