Case law

Buckman v. Hatch

7 Cal. Unrep. 11 · California Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1902

Proc., sec. 456; Improvement Co. v. Fulton, 4 Cal. Unrep. 151 , 33 Pac. 1117 ; Williams v. Bergin, 127 Cal. 578 , 60 Pac. 164 . … It was not necessary that this time be fixed in the contract, for the act does not require that it shall be so fixed: Fletcher v. Prather, 102 Cal. 413 , 36 Pac. 658 ; Buckman v. Ferguson, 108 Cal. 33 , 40 Pac. 1057 .

Payne & Dewey v. Treadwell

16 Cal. 220 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

(Paterson v. … Thus, in Moore v. Brown, ( 11 How. 428 ) C. J. Taney says: “ Undoubtedly, as a general principle, every one is chargeable with a knowledge of the law, in civil as well as criminal cases.

Los Carneros Community Associates v. Penfield & Smith Engineers Inc.

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 835 · California Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1999

81 Cal.Rptr.2d 835 (1999) 970 P.2d 409 LOS CARNEROS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATES et al., Appellants, v. PENFIELD & SMITH ENGINEERS, INC. et al., Respondents No. S072581. Supreme Court of California. January 13, 1999. … GEORGE, C.J., MOSK, J., KENNARD, J., BAXTER, J., WERDEGAR, J., CHIN, J., BROWN, J., concur.

Lay v. Hammond

212 Cal. 665 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1931

(Walker v. Rich, supra; Ruperich v. Baehr, 142 Cal. 190 [ 75 Pac. 782 ] ; Irilarry v. San Diego, supra.) … His claim is not such as may be ‘filed ¡with the state department, board or commission or officer’ of a state department, board or commission.

City of San Francisco v. Chambers

1 Cal. Unrep. 840 · California Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1874

In Donnelly v. Tillman [ 47 Cal. 40 ] and Donnelly v. Marks [ 47 Cal. 187 ], decided at the October term, 1873, we held it to be incumbent on the board of supervisors to publish the notice of the award, and in Hewes v. … Reis, 40 Cal. 264 , we decided that for omissions by the board to pursue the statute, *841 the remedy was not by remonstrance or petition to the board itself.

Wardlaw v. California Railway Co.

5 Cal. Unrep. 225 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1895

Railroad Co., 67 Cal. 319 , 7 Pac. 769 ; Long v. Railroad Co., 96 Cal. 269 , 31 Pac. 170 ; Jamison v. Railroad Co., 55 Cal. 593 ; Van Praag v. Gale, 107 Cal. 438 , 40 Pac. 555 ; Maumus v. … Champion, 40 Cal. 121 ; Davis v. Button, 78 Cal. 247 , 18 Pac. 133 , and 20 Pac. 545 ; Meeks v. Railroad Co., 52 Cal. 602 ; Glascock v. Railroad Co., 73 Cal. 137 , 14 Pac. 518 ; Holmes v.

Cal Fire Local 2881 v. Cal. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys.

244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2019

Board of Administration (1978) 21 Cal.3d 859 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 582 P.2d 614 , Kern v. City of Long Beach (1947) 29 Cal.2d 848 , 179 P.2d 799 , and similar cases. … (Maj. opn., ante , 244 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 166, fn. 12, 435 P.3d at p. 448, fn. 12; Betts v. Board of Administration , supra , 21 Cal.3d at p. 863 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 582 P.2d 614 ; Kern v.

Mesna v. Dawson

61 Cal. 2d 91 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1964

The principal questions presented on this appeal are decided in Sitzman v. City Board of Education of the City of Eureka, ante, p. 88 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 191 , 389 P.2d 719 ], and Horner v. … Board of Trustees of Excelsior Union High School Dist., ante, p. 79 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 389 P.2d 713 ].

People v. Fryman

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 702 · California Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2003

4 Cal.Rptr.3d 702 (2003) 76 P.3d 363 PEOPLE v. FRYMAN. No. S107283. Supreme Court of California. September 10, 2003. Morris Lenk, Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for the People. … BROWN, J., is of the opinion the matter should be retained.

City of Los Angeles v. Offner

18 Cal. 2d 859 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1941

18 Cal.2d 859 (1941) THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. MILTON OFFNER, Respondent. S. F. No. 16607. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. Oct. 21, 1941. Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney, and Hugh H. … By this proceeding in mandamus the petitioner, city of Los Angeles, seeks to compel the respondent, as secretary of its board of public works, to post and publish notices inviting sealed bids for the construction and *860

Harter v. City of San Jose

141 Cal. 659 · California Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1904

(Hoadley v. San Francisco, 50 Cal. 273 .) … In Gushee v. City of New York, 42 App. Div. 37 , 58 N. Y.

Berry v. Kowalsky

3 Cal. Unrep. 418 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1891

Code, secs. 1636, 1644-1646; Callahan v. Stanley, 57 Cal. 476 . … of the board, the testimony was conflicting.

Conservatorship of McQueen

59 Cal. 4th 602 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2014

In Serrano v. … (See, e.g., Jankey v. Lee (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1038, 1057; Carpenter v. Jack In The Box Corp. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 454, 461; Kirby v. Sega of America, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 47, 62; Wilkerson v.

People ex rel. Culbertson v. Potter

63 Cal. 127 · California Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1883

“It will be remembered,” says the Supreme Court of Iowa in MeCue v. … (Dorsey v. Smyth, 28 Cal. 21 ; Stratton v. Oulton, 28 Cal. 45 .)

In re Guerrero

69 Cal. 88 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1886

In State v. … (Desmond v. Dunn, 55 Cal. 242 ; Wood v. Board of Election Commissioners, 58 Cal. 561 .)

Sacramento Chamber of Commerce v. Stephens

212 Cal. 607 · California Supreme Court · May 7, 1931

(Holley v. County of Orange, 106 Cal. 420, 424 [ 39 Pac. 790 ]. See, also, First Nat. Bank v. Ball, 90 Cal. App. 709, 713 [ 266 Pac. 604 ].) … Bank v.

Popper v. Broderick

123 Cal. 456 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1899

(Truman v. Board, 110 Cal. 128 .) … The government of the city and county of San Francisco may be said to be dual in its nature, and in Kahn v.

Meyer v. Great Western Insurance

104 Cal. 381 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1894

Co. v. Albro Co., 112 U. S. 506 .) … Meyer had referred to them as the agents of the board of underwriters, and it was admitted that the defendant was a member of that board, ajid-the-agent of the defendant had stated to him that the telegram had been sent at

People v. Sanders

46 Cal. 2d 247 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1956

(Pearson v. United States, 150 F.2d 219, 221 ; Brown v. United States, 4 F.2d 246, 247 ; Baumboy v. United States, 24 F.2d 512, 513 ; People v. Ford, 356 Ill. 572, 576 [ 191 N.E. 315 ]; see Brinegar v. … That question was raised in People v. Brown, 45 Cal.2d 640 [ 290 P.2d 528 ], and People v.

Halpern v. Superior Court

190 Cal. 384 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1923

The province of certiorari is to review the record of an inferior court, board, or tribunal, and to determine from the record whether such court, board, or tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. … (Barber v. Board of Supervisors, 42 Cal. 630, 635 .) The writ is discharged. Kerrigan, J., Myers, J., Wilbur, C. J., Lennon, J., Lawlor, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.