Case law

Wilson v. Fisher

140 Cal. 188 · California Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1903

After a canvass of the returns by the board of supervisors the board declared petitioner elected, and immediately thereafter the county clerk of said county duly issued and delivered to petitioner a certificate of his election … (See Bledsoe v. Colgan, 138 Cal. 34 .) We see no valid reason whatever for holding the provision unconstitutional.

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Garamendi

74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2004

74 Cal.Rptr.3d 453 (2004) 180 P.3d 223 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. John GARAMENDI, as Insurance Commissioner No. S103243. Supreme Court of California. July 28, 2004. … GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, BROWN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Noland v. State Bar

63 Cal. 2d 298 · California Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1965

(Arden v. State Bar (1959) 52 Cal.2d 310, 321 [ 341 P.2d 6 ]; Fall v. State Bar (1944) 25 Cal.2d 149, 160 [ 153 P.2d 1 ].) … The findings of the Board of Governors are sustained.

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.

Coghlan v. Alpers

140 Cal. 648 · California Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1903

The charter of San Francisco provides that the board of supervisors of said city and county shall consist of eighteen members. … (Calverly v. Shank, 67 S. W. (Tex. Civ. App.) 434.)

Matter of Application of Dart

172 Cal. 47 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1916

A. 733, 67 Pac. 755 ], and Hewitt v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 148 Cal. 593 , [113 Am. St. Rep 315, 7 Ann. Cas. 750, 3 L. R. A. (N. … And in County of Los Angeles v.

People v. Duntley

217 Cal. 150 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1932

(Allen v. Railroad Com., 179 Cal. 68 [ 175 Pac. 466 , 8 A. L. R. 249]; Klatt v. Railroad Com., 192 Cal. 689 [ 221 Pac. 926 ].) … R. v. Railroad Com., 173 Cal. 802 [ 162 Pac. 391 , 1 A. L.

In Re Wright

10 Cal. 3d 374 · California Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1973

We exercise an independent judgment on the facts but, as we noted in Lefner v. … The board recommended disbarment.

Vowinckel v. N. Clark & Sons

217 Cal. 258 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1933

J. 232; Wheatley v. San Francisco, 169 Cal. 505, 514 [ 147 Pac. 135 ].) … L., p. 129, sec. 70; Board of Trustees v. Miller, 54 Cal. App. 102, 105 [ 201 Pac. 952 ] ; Southern Counties, etc., v. Eden, 118 Cal. App. 582, 586 [ 5 Pac. (2d) 654 ].) The language of Silva v.

Redlands, Lugonia & Crafton Domestic Water Co. v. City of Redlands

121 Cal. 312 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1898

The board of trustees of the city of Red-lands having in February, 1896, adopted an ordinance fixing the rates to he charged or collected for furnishing water to its inhabitants for domestic purposes during the year commencing … In San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego, 118 Cal. 556 , 62 Am. St.

People v. West

3 Cal. 3d 595 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1970

State (Del. 1963) 189 A.2d 432, 435 ; Commonwealth v. Maroney (1966) 423 Pa. 337 [ 223 A.2d 699, 704 ]; Brown v. … Williams (4th Cir. 1969) 407 F.2d 940, 948-949 ; United States v. Follette (2d Cir. 1968) 395 F.2d 721, 724-725 ; Brown v. Beto (5th Cir. 1967) 377 F.2d 950, 957 ; Cortez v.

Devaney v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

219 Cal. 487 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1933

(Burho v. M. & St. L. R. Co., supra; M. & St. L. R. Co. v. Gotschall, supra; Chicago, R. I. & Pac. R. Co. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317 [33 Sup. Ct. 840, 57 L. Ed. 1204 ]; McDonald v. Great Northern R. … Ry. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317 [33 Sup. Ct. 840, 57 L.

Schirmer v. Drexler

134 Cal. 134 · California Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1901

As supporting the position we here take, we cite as follows: Dobbs v. Purington, XXII Cal. Dec. 245; Wallace v. Farmersy Ditch Co., 130.Cal. 578; Reed v. Norton, 99 Cal. 617 ; Murdoch v. Clarhe, 59 Cal. 683 ; Green v. … (Reed v. Norton, supra.)

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.

In Re Marriage of Bonds

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 410 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1999

Susann Margreth Bonds, Appellant, v. Barry Lamar Bonds, Respondent. No. S079760. Supreme Court of California. July 21, 1999. Prior report: Cal.App., 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 783 . Respondent's petition for review GRANTED. … GEORGE, C.J., and MOSK, KENNARD, BAXTER, CHIN, and BROWN, JJ., concur.

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.

In re Estate of Shillaber

74 Cal. 144 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1887

(Allen v. Maddox, 11 Moore P. C. 454.) We think that, under the evidence and the language of the will, the letter was properly excluded. … (George v. George, 47 N. H. 45; Brown v. Bendell, L. R. 21 Ch. Div. 667.) The property named in the third article is evidently but a small part of the estate.

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.

Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District v. Rector

172 Cal. 385 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1916

No. 531 v. McCullah, 124 Cal. 176 , [ 56 Pac. 887 ]; Reclamation Dist. No. 551 v. Van Loben Sels, 117 Cal. 165 , [ 49 Pac. 131 ].) … Rep. 713 , 7 Pac..728]; Matter of Miller, 162 Cal. 698 , [ 124 Pac. 427 ]; Ruperich v.

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