Case law

Blood v. La Serena Land & Water Co.

113 Cal. 221 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1896

of the corporation, its board of directors. … (Gashwiler v. Willis, 33 Cal. 12 ; 91 Am. Dec. 607 ; Alta Silver Min. Co. v. Alta Placer Min. Co., 78 Cal. 629 .)

Eschwig v. State Bar

1 Cal. 3d 8 · California Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1969

In Magee v. … In Bruns v.

Williams, Belser & Co. v. Rowell

145 Cal. 259 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1904

It appears from the complaint that the board of trustees of the town of Emeryville adopted a plan or system of sewers for the town, and that the plaintiffs entered into a written contract with the defendant and other lotowners … (Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 254 .)

Dyer v. Hudson

2 Cal. Unrep. 149 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1882

The point decided in Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 , will not be considered on this appeal: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 659, subd. 3. … The time for doing the work may be extended by the board, but the board may not anticipate the extension when the original award is made.

Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union

55 Cal. 2d 754 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1961

(See Grunwald-Marx, Inc. v. Los Angeles Joint Board (1959), 52 Cal.2d 568, 589 [29] [ 343 P.2d 23 ].) American Stores Co. v. Johnston (1959), 171 F.Supp. 275 ; United States Steel Corp. v. … Thus, Flores v.

County of Orange v. Harris

97 Cal. 600 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1893

(Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, sec. 192; Campau v. Detroit, 14 Mich. 276 ; *603 Tims v. State, 26 Ala. 170 ; People v. Fleming, 7 Col. 236 ; Childs v. Shower, 18 Iowa, 272 .) … It is the legislature, and not the board of supervisors, which is charged with the duty of fixing the compensation due to the county officers; and Miller v. Dunn, 72 Cal. 462 , 1 Am. St. Rep. 67 , is not in point.

Holland v. Hotchkiss

162 Cal. 366 · California Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1912

Millikan, 99 Ind. 355 ; Knox v. Dunn, 22 Kan. 683 ; Brown v. Finley, 51 Neb. 468 , [ 71 N. W. 34 ] ; Dillon v. Merrian, 22 Neb. 152 , [ 34 N. W. 344 ]; Wood v Helmer, 10 Neb. 65 , [ 4 N. W. 968 ]; Boeck v. … (Jamison v. Jamison, 3. Whart. 471, [ 31 Am. Dec. 536 ]; McIntire v. Board, 5 Binn. 296 , [ 6 Am. Dec. 417 ]; Halls v. Thompson, 1 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 443, 489; Davar v. Cardwell, 27 Ind. 478 ; Woodruff v.

Wittman v. Police Court

145 Cal. 474 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1904

(Bennett v. Wallace, 43 Cal. 25 ; Valentine v. Police Court, 141 Cal. 615 .) … (Ex parte Miller, 82 Cal. 454 ; Powelson v. Lockwood, 82 Cal. 613 .)

Boyce v. San Diego High School District

215 Cal. 293 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1932

This is an action for damages for personal injuries, brought by plaintiff and respondent against defendant San Diego High School District and the members of its board of education. … (See Dobbie v. Pacific Gas *295 & Elec. Co., 95 Cal. App. 781 [ 273 Pac. 830 ]; Bush v. Weed Lumber Co., 63 Cal. App. 426 [ 218 Pac. 618 ]; Madigan v. O. A. Hale & Co., 90 Cal. App. 151 [ 265 Pac. 574 ].)

People v. Robinson

36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 760 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2005

Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 396-398 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ] (Brown II); People v. Pollock (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1153, 1181 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 34 , 89 P.3d 353 ] (Pollock); People v. … (See, e.g., People v. Brown, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 567-568; People v. Lawley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 166; People v. Hines, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1068; People v. Sanchez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 77 .) b.

San Francisco & San Mateo Electric Railway Co. v. Scott

142 Cal. 222 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1904

(Taylor v. Goodwin, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 228.) … Co. v.

Kelson v. State Bar

17 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1976

The board adopted both the committee’s findings of fact and its recommendation for discipline. … , the ultimate determination rests with this court (Toll v.

Sparrow v. Rhoades

76 Cal. 208 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 1888

(Kimball *211 v. Gearhart, 12 Cal. 50 ; Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 672 ; Willson v. Cleaveland, 30 Cal. 201 ; Bell v. Bed Rock T. & M. Co., 36 Cal. 219 ; Semple v. … The result of showing that the plaintiff’s deed from the defendant was void was to prove title in the defendant, and this has been held to be admissible under the general denial in Marshall v. Shafter, 32 Cal. 177 .

Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission

41 Cal. 4th 372 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 2007

(Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 794-795 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 398 , 654 P.2d 168 ], questioned on another point in Board of Supervisors v. … (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564, fn. 3 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 410 , 801 P.2d 1161 ].)

Immel v. Langley

52 Cal. 2d 104 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 1959

(DeWoody v. Belding, 210 Cal. 461, 463-464 [ 292 P. 265 ]; Kerr v. Russell, 209 Cal. 36, 38 [ 285 P. 311 ]; McClintock v. Abel, 21 Cal.App.2d 11,14-16 [ 68 P.2d 273 ].) … The cases of Wright v. Ashton, 143 Cal. 544, 548 [ 77 P. 477 ], and Snibley v.

People v. Ruggles

39 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1985

Chambers v. … In People v.

Farrar v. the State Bar

1 Cal. 2d 359 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1934

This is a proceeding to review the action of the board of governors of The State Bar of California recommending suspension of the petitioner Mercer H. … (Ring v. State Bar, 218 Cal. 747 [ 24 Pac. (2d) 821 ].)

Pacific Rock & Gravel Co. v. City of Upland

67 Cal. 2d 666 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1967

Dean v. Board of Supervisors (1898) 122 Cal. 421, 423 [ 55 P. 131 ] ; Truchee & Tahoe T. Road Co. v. Campbell (1872) 44 Cal. 89 , 91 ; Fall v. County of Sutter (1862) 21 Cal. 237 , 252-253 ; Monarch Cablevision, Inc. v. … City Council (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 206, 210 [2b] [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 550 ] ; see also Newsom v. Board of Supervisors (1928) 205 Cal. 262, 271 [ 270 P. 676 ].)

Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court

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

Dissenting Opinion by BROWN, J. … In National Labor Relations Board v.

Adams v. City of Modesto

131 Cal. 501 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1901

Code, sec. 3479; Peterson v. City of Santa Rosa, 119 Cal. 387, 392 ; Lind v. City of San Luis Obispo, 109 Cal. 340 ; Wood on Nuisances, sec. 781, note 1.) … of the sixth class, of which the city of Modesto is one; which provides that “all demands against such city or town shall be presented and audited by the board of trustees,” etc.