Case law

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.

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.

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 .)

Cullen v. Sprigg

83 Cal. 56 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1890

(Schenk v. Evoy, 24 Cal. 110 ; Grogan v. Vache, 45 Cal. 610 ; Lawrence v. Ballou, 37 Cal. 518 ; Lick v. O’Donnell, 3 Cal. 60 ; 58 Am. Dec. 383 ; Wallace v. Miller, 52 Cal. 655 .) In Pipkin v. … (Lawrence v. Ballou, 37 Cal. 518 ; Jackson v. Livingston, 7 Wend. 136 .)

Guidi v. Superior Court

10 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1973

In People v. … (People v.

Degrassi v. Cook

127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 508 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 2002

As in Katzberg v. … Brown Act (Brown Act; Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.). 8 Had she done so—and assuming that an injunction was warranted on the facts—much *343 of the conduct of which plaintiff complains might have been avoided.

Allen v. Hance

161 Cal. 189 · California Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1911

(Meuser v. Risdon, 36 Cal. 239 .)” A reading of Meuser v. … The clerk of the board of supervisors without authority from the board (even if such authority could be vested in him) undertook so to relet the contract.

City of Fairfield v. Superior Court

14 Cal. 3d 768 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1975

Board of Education (1972) 6 Cal.3d 575, 587 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 16 , 493 P.2d 480 ].) … (See Siller v. Board of Supervisors (1962) 58 Cal.2d 479 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 73 , 375 P.2d 41 ].) * Overruled on other grounds in Bailey v.

Hiller v. Collins

63 Cal. 235 · California Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1883

(Falkinburg v. Lucy, 35 Cal. 52 ; Hicks v. Compton, 18 Cal. 206 .) … (Coolot v. C. P. R. R. Co. 52 Cal. 67; Parrott v. Floyd 54 Cal. 534; White v. Nunan, 60 Cal. 406 ; De Godey v. Godey, 39 Cal. 167 ; McCreery v. Brown, 42 Cal. 457 .)

Laurel Hill Cemetery v. City & County of San Francisco

152 Cal. 464 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1907

The court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the board of supervisors. … In Hume v.

Shepherd v. Keagle

6 Cal. Unrep. 52 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1898

The board of supervisors of the county of San Joaquin passed the following resolution March 2, 1897: “Resolved, that the members of the board of supervisors of San Joaquin county be, and are hereby authorized and appointed … The principles involved under the facts in this case do not differ in any substantial respect from those presented in the case of Irwin v.

Legislature of the State of Cal. v. Weber

California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2024

(See People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 186–187; Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236, 260–261; In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 891–892; Raven v. … (Geiger v. Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal.2d 832, 839–840 (Geiger).)

City of Los Angeles v. Offner

55 Cal. 2d 103 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1961

William Mackenzie Brown and Roscoe R. Hess for Respondent. SCHAUER, J. … In City of Glendale v.

Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. Wood

113 Cal. 482 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1896

(Martin v. Smith, 1 Dill. 85 ; Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 135 ; Hecht v. Slaney, 72 Cal. 363 ; Moore v. Boyd, 74 Cal. 167 ; Lataillade v. Orena, 91 Cal. 565 ; 25 Am. St. Rep. 219 .) … (Un derhill v. Santa Barbara etc. Co., 93 Cal. 312 .) Oakland v. Carpentier, 13 Cal. 540 , is not in contravention of this proposition.

Mills v. Boyle Mining Co.

132 Cal. 95 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1901

Co., 93 Cal. 314 ; Burnett v. Lyford, 93 Cal. 117 ; Wharf and Lumber Co. v. Simpson, 77 Cal. 290 ; Schallard v. Eel River Nav. Co., 70 Cal. 146 .) … Under these circumstances, the point is made that his presence was unnecessary, and that his absence did not affect the validity of the action of the board.

Ainsworth v. Bryant

34 Cal. 2d 465 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1949

Distillery Corp. v. … Pacific Fruit *474 Express Co., 11 Cal.2d 283, 289 [ 79 P.2d 380 ], and cases cited; see, also, Western Lithograph Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 11 Cal.2d 156, 162 [ 78 P.2d 731 , 117 A.L.R 838]; De Aryan v.

Socialist Party, USA v. Jordan

49 Cal. 2d 864 · California Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1957

Brown, Attorney General, and Delbert E. Wong, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. Memorandum THE COURT. This appeal presents the same question as that involved in Christian Nationalist Party v. … For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Christian Nationalist Party v. Jordan, ante, p. 448 [ 318 P.2d 473 ], I would reverse the judgment.

MacFarlane v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

51 Cal. 2d 84 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1958

(Covert v. State Board of Equalization (1946), 29 Cal.2d 125, 132 [6, 7] [ 173 P.2d 545 ].) … (People v. Munroe (1893), 100 Cal. 664, 670 [ 35 P. 326 , 38 Am.St.Rep. 323 , 24 L.R.A. 33 ]; Allen v. Allen (1892), 95 Cal. 184, 199 [ 30 P. 213 , 16 L.R.A. 646 ]; see also Central Pac. Ry. Co. v.