Case law

Barry v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Sanitarium of the Sisters of Mercy

5 Cal. Unrep. 625 · California Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1897

The agreement was that Little should be furnished with a private room, and board, care and medical attendance in sickness, during the term of his natural life. … Besides, mere inadequacy of price is not alone sufficient to warrant a court in setting aside a sale: Hammond v. Wallace, 85 Cal. 522 , 20 Am. St. Rep. 239 , 24 Pac. 837 .

Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley

60 Cal. 4th 1086 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2015

.‖ (Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of Supervisors (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 497, 513.) … Chatten-Brown & Carstens, Jan Chatten-Brown, Douglas P. Carstens; Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp, Michael W.

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 .)

Earl Ranch, Ltd. v. Industrial Accident Commission

4 Cal. 2d 767 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1935

(Brown v. Anderson, 77 Cal. 236 [ 19 Pac. 487 ]; Shaffner v. Lipinsky, 194 N. C. 1 [ 138 S. E. 418 ]; Byrne v. Bearden, 27 Ga. App. 149 [ 107 S. E. 782 ].) … (See Mulville v. San Diego, 183 Cal. 734, 739 [ 192 Pac. 702 ]; Bagg v. Wickizer, 9 Cal. App. (2d) 753 [ 50 Pac. (2d) 1047 ].)

People v. Robinson

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2004

Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ; Batson v. … GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court

10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 283 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 2004

BROWN, J., Dissenting. … “For the Board to exercise jurisdiction over an educational institution where ‘the inculcation of religious values is at least one purpose of the institution’ and ‘to promise that courts in the future will control the Board

Jacoby v. State Bar

19 Cal. 3d 359 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1977

In State v. … Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council (1976) 425 U.S. 748, 756 [ 48 L.Ed.2d 346, 355 , 96 S.Ct. 1817 ] [hereinafter Board of Pharmacy]; see also Kleindienst v.

Schroeder v. Happ

155 Cal. 153 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1909

(Ametrano v. Downs, 170 N. Y. 388 , [ 88 Am. St. Rep. 671 , 63 N. E. 340 ]; Brown v. Thorndike, 32 Mass. 388 ; Hattersley v. Bissett, 51 N. J. Eq. 597, [ 40 Am. St. Rep. 532 , 29 Atl. 187 ].)

Crosby v. Lyon

37 Cal. 242 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

The petition shows that for the year 1868 the Board of Supervisors levied a tax of eighteen cents upon each one hundred dollars of taxable property in the county for the support of common schools. … The meaning of the clause in question arose in the case of The District Township of the City of Dubuque v.

Worth v. State Bar

17 Cal. 3d 337 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1976

Petitioner has the burden in this proceeding to show that the findings of the disciplinary board are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Lewis v. … (Id., at p. 713; Simmons v. State Bar (1969) 70 Cal.2d 361, 365 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 915 , 450 P.2d 291 ]; Clark v. State Bar (1952) 39 Cal.2d 161, 166-170 [ 246 P.2d 1 ].)

City of San Luis Obispo v. Haskin

91 Cal. 549 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1891

It is admitted that the plaintiffs are entitled to the writ prayed for, if the notice required by section 3 of the act of March 19, 1889, and published by order of the board of trustees, sufficiently stales the amount of … The case of People v. Baker, 83 Cal. 149 , does not support the defendant’s contention.

Cason v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn.

37 Cal. 2d 134 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 1951

. *140 During the pendency of the action above referred to, the president’s order of suspension was approved by the executive board of the national union on March 2, 1946, and plaintiff then appealed to the national convention … (See, also, Brown v. Lehman, 141 Pa.Super. 467 [ 15 A.2d 513, 516-517 ].) The present case, however, does not fall within this rule, since plaintiff denied most, if not all, of the charges against him.

Wutchumna Water Co. v. Bailey

216 Cal. 564 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1932

For it appears that in 1921, in the cause entitled Tulare Irrigation District v. … Finally, in 1926, when a vacancy occurred on the board of directors of appellant and a deadlock existed as a result thereof and pending the filling of the vacancy on the board respondent, as appellant’s attorney, recommended

Visalia & Tulare Railroad v. Hyde

110 Cal. 632 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1895

(Morawetz on Corporations, sec. 159; Cook on Stock and Stockholders, sec. 256; Hall v. United States Ins. Co., 5 Gill, 484 ; Hartford etc. R. R. Co. v. Boorman, 12 Conn. 530 ; Upton v. … Co. v. Bagley, 14 Mich. 501 .)

Green v. Abietine Medical Co.

96 Cal. 322 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1892

Co. v. Spreckles, 65 Cal. 193 .) … (See Sayre v. Gas L. & H. Co., 69 Cal. 208 ; Bes Moines Gas Co. v. West, 50 Iowa, 25 ; Goff v. H. P. & W. Co., 62 Iowa, 691 ; St. C. L. Co. v. Mittlestadt 43 Minn. 91 ; Walburn v. Chenault, 43 Kan. 352 .)

Ferran v. Southern Pacific Co.

3 Cal. 2d 350 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1935

Looking south he saw the train he intended to board rounding a curve about half a mile away. He then walked to the macadamized space in front of the station and signaled the approaching train. … We are not persuaded that the appropriate rule is relaxed in the defendant’s favor because Lomita Park was a flag stop for the northbound train which the plaintiff desired to board.

Petaluma Paving Co. v. Singley

136 Cal. 616 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1902

(Martin v. Matfield, 49 Cal. 42 ; Bode v. Lee, 102 Cal. 586 ; Evans v. Paige, 102 Cal. 132 ; Pierce v. Willis, 103 Cal. 93 ; Hall v. Susskind, 120 Cal. 559 .) … (Finlayson’s Street Law, pp. 116-117; Fanning v. Leviston, 93 Cal. 188 ; Warren v. Riddell, 106 Cal. 352 ; Perine v. Forbush, 97 Cal. 162 .) We advise that the order appealed from be reversed.

Snibley v. Palmtag

127 Cal. 31 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1899

Appellant was declared elected by the board of canvassers. … (Atlantic Dock Co. v. Mayor etc., 53 N. Y. 64; Shafer v. Shafer, 30 Mich. 163 ; Danforth v. Danforth,. 111 Ill. 236 .) *33 It is not correct to say that the estate of the deceased has no interest in the controversy.

People v. Alice

61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 648 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 2007

Co. v. … ’ Retirement System (the Board) by article XVI, section 17 of the California Constitution did not permit the Board to exempt its employees from civil service.

Hunt v. Superior Court

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 236 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1999

(Bell v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1705-1710; Oberlander v. … (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 286 .)