Case law

Beaudry v. Valdez

32 Cal. 269 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

In that case we held that resolutions of intention to improve streets, passed by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, need not be approved by the Mayor in order to become valid and vest the Board … (Emery v. Bradford, 29 Cal. 75 ; Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 240 .)

Town of San Leandro v. Le Breton

72 Cal. 170 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1887

(Rowan’s Ex’rs v. Town of Portland, 8 B. Mon. 232 ; Briell v. City of Natchez, 48 Miss. 423 ; Bartlett v. Bangor, 67 Me. 464 ; Wiggins v. McCleary, 49 N. Y. 346 ; Kittle v. Pfeiffer, 22 Cal. 489 ; Stone v. … (Cincinnati v. White’s Lessees, 6 Bet. 431; Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Baige, 510; Huber v. Gazely, 18 Ohio, 18; Logansport v. Dunn, 8 Ind. 378 ; Carter v. City of Portland, 4 Or. 339 ; Raich v.

Witter v. Bank of Milpitas

204 Cal. 570 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1928

(Kennedy v. Dunn, 58 Cal. 339, 340 ; Balfour-Guthrie Co. v. Woodworth, 124 Cal. 169, 171, 173 [ 56 Pac. 891 ]; Sargent v Shumaker, 193 Cal. 122, 130 [ 223 Pac. 464 ]; Baldwin v. … Brown, 193 Cal. 345, 351, 352 [ 224 Pac. 462 ]; 25 Cal. Jur. 81, sec. 65.) We are of the opinion that this rule is applicable to the present case.

In Re Petersen

51 Cal. 2d 177 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1958

In Franchise Tax Board v. … Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 [ 36 S.Ct. 141 , 60 L.Ed. 372 ]; Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 [ 12 S.Ct. 495 , 36 L.Ed. 294 ].)"

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

Poultry Producers of Southern California, Inc. v. Barlow

189 Cal. 278 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1922

sell at such future time as the board of directors may direct, without making further accounting to seller therefor. . . . … (See Standard Fashion Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co., supra; 36 Cyc. 587; Brown v. Western Maryland R. Co., 84 W. Va. 271 [4 A. L. R. 523, 99 S. E. 457 ].)

Palo Verde Irrigation District v. Seeley

198 Cal. 477 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1926

In the case of Barber v. … V.

Stanford v. the State Bar of California

15 Cal. 2d 721 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1940

He-wicker, the local member of the board of governors of The State Bar, called his attention to the mortgage as recorded, and suggested that he investigate the matter. Mr. … (Matter of Humphrey, 174 Cal. 290 [ 163 Pac. 60 ], In re O’Connell, 184 Cal. 584 [ 194 Pac. 1010 ], Lantz v. State Bar, 212 Cal. 213, 218 [ 298 Pac. 497 ], and In re Hatch, 10 Cal. (2d) 147 [ 73 Pac. (2d) 885 ].)

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.

Helvey v. Sax

38 Cal. 2d 21 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1951

(People v. Chambers, 37 Cal.2d 552, 555 [ 233 P.2d 557 ]; State Land Settlement Board v. Henderson, 197 Cal. 470, 479 [ 241 P. 560 ]; San Pedro etc. R. R. Co. v. Los Angeles, 180 Cal. 18, 22 [ 179 P. 393 ].) … Code, § 32200 et seq.; see Hand v. El Horado Irr. Dist., 97 Cal.App. 740 [ 276 P. 137 ] ; San Joaquin Agr. Corp. v. Board of Supervisors, 121 Cal.App. 468 [ 8 P.2d 1051 ].)

Peters v. City & County of San Francisco

41 Cal. 2d 419 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1953

(Sexton v. … The clerk of the board stamped the signed claim “Received,” returned it to the attorney, and retained the unsigned copy for the files.

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.

People v. Morgan

67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 753 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2007

(People v. Brown, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 789 (Brown).) In 1980, in Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at page 67 , we found a 90-foot movement insufficient as a matter of law for the reasons stated in Brown . … (People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 401 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ].) Except for factor (b), no burden of proof is constitutionally required at the penalty phase. (People v.

Christopher v. State Bar

26 Cal. 2d 663 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1945

The proceeding *666 was certified to the Board of Governors for dismissal. … Jacobs v. State Bar, 219 Cal. 59 [ 25 P.2d 401 ].)

People ex rel. Bosqui v. Crockett

9 Cal. 112 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

Under the provisions of the fourteenth section, the board had the right to pass such a by-law, to operate prospectively. … In the case of Tuttle v. Walton, (1 Kelly’s Ga.

Hurley v. Ryan

137 Cal. 461 · California Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1902

CHIPMAN, C. to recover for board, lodging, and for services rendered defendant’s intestate, Florence McCarthy, in her lifetime. … The principle was clearly stated and fully considered in Melone v.

Malloy v. Fong

37 Cal. 2d 356 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1951

The other children remained in Fong’s station wagon, plaintiff standing on the left running board and another boy standing on the right running board. … Antisdale testified that he ordered the children off the running boards.

Wilson v. Stockholders Pub. Co., Inc.

4 Cal. 2d 724 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1935

In the first article, printed June 12', 1934, it was stated that the board of supervisors had purchased from the Sierra Equipment Company (the contract having been awarded to that company), of which plaintiff was president … (Haskins v. Jordan, 123 Cal. 157 [55 Pac. 786]; Leonard v. McPherson, 146 Cal. 616 [ 80 Pac. 1084 ].) The respondents place great reliance upon the case of Mortensen v. Los Angeles Examiner, 112 Cal.

Fagundes v. Central Pacific Railroad

3 L.R.A. 824 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1889

Code, sec. 1970; Stephens v. Doe, 73 Cal. 28 ; McLean v. Blue Point Gravel Mining Company, 51 Cal. 257 ; Fisk v. C. P. R. R. Co., 72 Cal. 42 ; Brown v. C. P. R. R. Co., 72 Cal. 523 .) … (Vanderford v. Foster, 65 Cal. 49 .) In cases where the facts are undisputed, the question of negligence is a question of law to be passed on by the court. (Glascock v. C. P. R. R. Co., 73 Cal. 137 , and cases cited.)

Reclamation Dist. No. 730 v. Hershey

169 Cal. 793 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1915

It is said that the vital defect in the report is that it does not advise the board of trustees, or any other person, what particular work has been done for which this expense has been incurred, and Reclamation District v … Clark, 155 Cal. 345 , [ 100 Pac. 1091 ] ; Reclamation District v. Hershey, 160 Cal. 692 , [ 117 Pac. 904 ], and Reclamation District v.