Case law

Socialist Party v. Uhl.

155 Cal. 776 · California Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1909

The objection to the legislative act in this regard is practically the same as the objection held to be good in Eaton v. Brown, 96 Cal. 375 , [ 31 Am. St. … The views expressed in Murphy v. Curry, 137 Cal. 479 , [ 70 Pac. 461 ], and Eaton v. Brown, [ 31 Am. St. Rep. 225 , 31 Pac. 250 ], fully sustain this conclusion.

Connelly v. City & County of San Francisco

164 Cal. 101 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1912

(Dear v. Varnum, 80 Cal. 89 , [ 22 Pac. 76 ].) … Co. v. Curry, 157 Cal. 730 , [ 109 Pac. 264 ] ; Dudley v. Board of Commissioners, 80 Fed. 672 , [ 26 C. C. A. 82 ] ; see, also, Clark v. Los Angeles, 160 Cal. 45 , [ 116 Pac. 722 ].)

Patton v. City of Alameda

40 Cal. 3d 41 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1985

In Carman v. … Board of Supervisors, supra, 96 Cal.App.3d 874 ), this is not the fact in all of the cases cited. In City of Fresno v.

Green v. Superior Court

10 Cal. 3d 616 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1974

Treber v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 128, 131 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 436 P.2d 330 ]; Brown v. … Lerner (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 746 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 433 ]; Brown v.

Harding & Loftin v. Jasper

14 Cal. 642 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

In Phipps v. … In Stacy v.

El Tejon Cattle Co. v. County of San Diego

64 Cal. 2d 428 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1966

Hence, as in County of Riverside v. Palm-Ramon Dev. … (See also Cottle v. Spitzer (1884) 65 Cal. 456 [ 4 P. 435 , 52 Am.Rep. 305 ] ; Jackson & Perkins Co. v. Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 559 [ 335 P.2d 976 ] ; Stribling’s Nurseries, Inc. v.

Watriss v. Reed

99 Cal. 134 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1893

(Bascomb v. Davis, 56 Cal. 152 ; Hosmer v. Wallace, 97 U. S. 577 .) … Among other tacts conceded in the record is the fact that her grantor Brown put her in possession of the tract.

Fredericka Home for the Aged v. County of San Diego

35 Cal. 2d 789 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1950

John the Evangelist v. Treasurer of City and County of Denver, 37 Colo. 378 [ 86 P. 1021, 1024-1025 ]; Old Colony Trust Co. v. O. M. Fisher Home, Inc., 301 Mass. 1 [ 16 N.E.2d 10, 11 ]; Gundry v. R. B. … Doctors Hospital, Inc. v. Sexton, 267 App.Div. 736 [ 48 N.Y.S.2d 201, 205 ]; Baylor University v. Boyd (Tex.Civ.App.) 18 S.W.2d 700, 701 ; Brattleboro Retreat v.

People v. Southern Pac. Co.

209 Cal. 578 · California Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1930

Co. v. … (Veterans’ Welfare Board v. Jordan, 189 Cal. 124 [22 A. L. R. 1515, 208 Pac. 284 ]; Title etc. Restoration Co. v. Kerrigan, 150 Cal. 289 [ 119 Am. St. Rep. 199 , 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 682, 88 Pac. 356 ].)

San Pedro Lumber Co. v. Reynolds

121 Cal. 74 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1898

the pleasure of the board. … (Roubidoex v. Parks, 48 Cal. 215 ; Young v. Powell, 87 Mo. 128 ; Darling v. Younker, 37 Ohio St. 487 ; 41 Am. Rep. 532 ; Marvin v. Brooks, 94 N. Y. 76 ; Rochester v.

People v. Robinson

43 Cal. 2d 143 · California Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1954

Brown, Attorney General, and William E. James, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. SPENCE, J. … Haeussler, 41 Cal.2d 252, 254 [ 260 P.2d 8 ]; People v. Brown, 114 Cal. App.2d 52, 53 [ 249 P.2d 595 ]; People v. Sumner, 117 Cal.

Johnson v. State Bar

10 Cal. 2d 212 · California Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1937

(Johnson v. State Bar, 4 Cal. (2d) 744 [ 52 Pac. (2d) 928 ].) … (Johnson v. State Bar, supra.)

In Re Safran

18 Cal. 3d 134 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1976

The Disciplinary Board of the State Bar reported that the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offenses involved moral turpitude, but a majority of the board was unable to agree on the extent of discipline … (See Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 891, fn. 8 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 793 , 544 P.2d 929 ].) This order is effective 30 days after the filing of this opinion.

Williams v. County of Los Angeles

22 Cal. 3d 731 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1978

Barthuli v. Board of Trustees (1977) 19 Cal.3d 717, 721-722 [ 139 Cal. … Skelly v. State Personnel Board, supra, 15 Cal.3d 194, 206-207 .) The allegation — and admission of such allegation by demurrer — does not establish his claimed property right. In Boren v.

Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Houser

103 Cal. 377 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1894

stockholders, including the defendant, at his place of residence; that the defendant had not paid the assessment on his stock or any part thereof, and that before the time fixed for the sale of the delinquent stock the board … (Hanchett v. Finch, 47 Cal. 192 ; Avila v. Meherin, 68 Cal. 478 ; Clanton v. Ruffner, 78 Cal. 268 ; People v. Vincent, 95 Cal. 427 .)

Simmons v. Rhodes & Jamieson, Ltd.

46 Cal. 2d 190 · California Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1956

They leveled the cement by pushing it into position, using shovels and a long board for this purpose. During this maneuver plaintiff frequently got down on his hands and knees to shove the leveling board. … In Burr v.

Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach

6 Cal. 3d 279 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1971

(Vetter v. Zoning Board of Appeal of Attleboro (1953) 330 Mass. 628 [ 116 N.E.2d 277 ]; see also Galpin v. Village of River Forest (1962) 26 Ill.2d 515 [ 187 N.E.2d 233 ]; Korby v. … Proc., § 1094.5; Hostetter v. Alderson, supra, 38 Cal.2d 499, 500 ; Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 638 [ 234 P.2d 981 ].)

California Cigarette Concessions, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

53 Cal. 2d 865 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1960

Proc., § 356; Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs., 18 Cal.2d 427, 430-431 [ 116 P.2d 37 , 136 A.L.R. 800 ].) A claim not acted upon within 90 days is deemed rejected. (Los Angeles City Charter, § 363.) … (McNeil v. Board of Retirement, 51 Cal.2d 278 [ 332 P.2d 281 ] ; United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v.

Woods v. Varnum

83 Cal. 46 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1890

On October 5th, following, the board of supervisors appointed Henry Weineke to fill the vacancy caused by the removal of defendant, and on October 7th the court below made an order directing the sheriff to put Weineke in … In the case of Covarrubias v.

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

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 407 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1998

Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity, S062156 (see Cal. … GEORGE, C.J., and MOSK, KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN and BROWN, JJ., concur.