Case law

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.

City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court

13 Cal. 3d 933 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1975

Petitioners, the City and County of San Francisco and individual members of the city’s board of supervisors, seek a writ of prohibition to restrain the superior court from enforcing an order *935 requiring the individual … In the recent case of County of Los Angeles v.

Pac. Fruit Co. v. Coon

107 Cal. 447 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1895

(Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Cal. 121 ; Cali *453 fornia etc. Hotel Co. v. Callender, 94 Cal. 127 ; 28 Am. St. Rep. 99 .) W. H. … But however this may be, no act of the board of directors, legal or illegal, could have had the effect to cancel W. K. Masten’s subscription.

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.

Schaffer v. State

212 Cal. 367 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1931

representations made by petitioner to a third person, whereas other positive allegations charged petitioner with the appropriation to his own use of moneys belonging to others. [1] Besides, in the recent case of In re Herron v. … After questioning petitioner, the board of governors recommended the increased penalty of six months' suspension.

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.

People v. Hager

2 Cal. Unrep. 13 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1876

In Dyer v. … This was no defense to the action and was properly stricken out: Hager v. Supervisors, 47 Cal. 222 .

Perine v. Forbush

97 Cal. 305 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1893

And in the case of McBean v. Redick, 96 Cal. 191 , it was also held that the property owner is not required to appeal to the board of trustees or city council, when the assessment is based upon an invalid contract. … (Himmelman v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 276 ; Boyle v. Hitchcock, 66 Cal. 129 ; Fanning v. Leviston, 93 Cal. 186 ; Frick v. Morford, 87 Cal. 579 .)

McCall v. Harris

6 Cal. 281 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

Neither is the board authorized to set apart such fund. … It could hardly be contended with fairness, that the fourteenth and sixteenth sections of the Act were intended to cut off all previous existing indebtedness, and as intimated by us in the case of Brooks v.

Pearlin v. State Bar

18 Cal. 2d 682 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1941

The Board of Governors adopted the findings and has recommended to this court that petitioner be disbarred from the practice of the law. … (Maggart v. State Bar, 7 Cal. (2d) 495, 502 [ 61 Pac. (2d) 451 ].) In our opinion disbarment is warranted under the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record.

Jones v. Shuey

5 Cal. Unrep. 17 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1895

The identical question here presented arose in the very recent ease of Wagner v. Hansen, 103 Cal. 104 , 37 Pac. 195 , and a reversal of the judgment was the result: See, also, Reed v. … A tender must be unconditional: Brown v. Gilmore, 8 Greenl. (Me.) 107, 22 Am. Dec. 223 . We also think the demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled.

People v. McFarland

58 Cal. 2d 748 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1962

(See People v. Brown, 200 Cal.App.2d 111, 118 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 36 ].) … (See e.g., People v. Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577, 593-594 [ 320 P.2d 5 ] ; People v. Logan, 41 Cal.2d 279, 291 [ 260 P.2d 20 ].)

Johnston v. City of Los Angeles

176 Cal. 479 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1917

Griffin was conveyed by the city to its board of water commissioners. … This conclusion is supported by such authorities as Papst v. Hamilton, 133 Cal. 631 , [ 66 Pac. 10 ]; Firth v. Marovich, 160 Cal. 257 , [Ann. *488 Cas. 1912D, 1190, 116 Pac. 729 ], and Parsons v.

Loveland v. Garner

74 Cal. 298 · California Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1887

(Felch v. Beaudry, 40 Cal. 439 ; Hemme v. Hays, 55 Cal. 339 ; Gay v. Winter, 34 Cal. 153 ; Fitzgibbon v. Calvert, 39 Cal. 261 .) … (Curtis v. Richards, 9 Cal. 38 .) And in such a case, the defendant should, at least, show “ how it happened that he was without knowledge as to such ‘facts.” (Brown v. Scott, 25 Cal. 190 .)

Randolph v. Gawley

47 Cal. 458 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

The resolution of the Board of Supervisors declaring its intention to improve the street, and the contract with the contractor, described the work to be done as the repairing of a certain portion of Market street, and the … (Richardson v. Heydenfeldt, 46 Cal. 68 ; San Francisco v. Clark, ante, p. 456. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith. Mr. Justice Rhodes did not express an opinion.

People v. Shaw

17 Cal. 2d 778 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1941

(People v. Robbins, 171 Cal. 466 [ 154 Pac. 317 ]; People v. Woodcock, 52 Cal. App. 412, 417 [ 199 Pac. 565 ]; People v. Janssen, 74 Cal. App. 402, 407 [ 240 Pac. 799 ].) In People v. … (People v. Viets, 79 Cal. App. 576, 587 [ 250 Pac. 588 ].)” ’ ” In People v.

Grosset v. Wenaas

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 129 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 2008

The authority to manage the business and affairs of a corporation is vested in its board of directors, not in its shareholders. (§ 300, subd. (a); Granite Gold Min. Co. v. … The fundamental purpose of a derivative action is to provide a means by which a stockholder may seek to enforce the rights of a corporation when the corporate board refuses to do so. (Jones v. H. F.

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

50 Cal. 2d 664 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1958

Ewell (Fla., 1952), 61 So.2d 420 ; Brown v. Kistleman (1912), 177 Ind. 692 [ 98 N.E. 631 , 40 L.R.A.N.S. 236 ]; Cravens v. Louisville & N.B. Co. (1922), 195 Ky. 257 [ 242 S.W. 628 ]; Coastal Tank Lines v. … (Cooney v. Moomaw, 109 F.Supp. 448 ; Missouri Pacific Transp. Co. v. Miller, 227 Ark. 351 [ 299 S.W.2d 41 , 45 et seq.] ; Brown v. Georgia-Tennessee Coaches, 88 Ga.App. 519 [ 77 S.E.2d 24 ] ; Acuff v.

Fitzhugh v. Ashworth

119 Cal. 393 · California Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1897

plans and specifications and filed the same with the clerk of the board, but the board never expressly approved the same. … Plans and specifications do not constitute a necessary part of a resolution of intention (Harny v. Heller, 47 Cal. 15 ); they are superfluous, and need not be followed.

Morgan v. Lones

80 Cal. 317 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1889

This was held in the case of Eversdon v. Mayhew, 65 Cal. 183 . … (Fuller v. Ferguson, 26 Cal. 566 ; Noe v. Card, 14 Cal. 600 .)