Case law

City of San Francisco v. Calderwood

31 Cal. 585 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

It was considered in Harding v. … (See Bead v. Leeds, 19 Conn. 186 .) But it is urged that in the case of McCracken v.

Martinez v. Newton

8 Cal. 3d 756 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1973

(Zeilenga v. Nelson (1971) 4 Cal.3d 716 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 602 , 484 P.2d 578 ]; Camara v. Mellon (1971) 4 Cal.3d 714 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 484 P.2d 577 ].) … For the reasons stated in Mexican-American Political Association v.

Jacobs v. the State Bar

219 Cal. 59 · California Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1933

The findings of the committee were adopted by the board. … The petitioner on the record herein has failed to meet the burden devolving upon him to show that the board’s -decision is erroneous or unlawful. (Aydelotte v.

Thompson v. Fitzgerald

205 Cal. 563 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1928

In Flores v. … In Flores v.

Davis v. Rock Creek L. F. & M. Co.

55 Cal. 359 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

This was clearly unauthorized by the resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees. (Koehler v. Black River Falls Iron Company, 2 Black, 719 .) … (Andrews v. Pratt, 44 Cal. 309 ; San Diego v. S. D. and *365 L. A. R. R. Co. 44 id. 106 ; Wilbur v. Lynde, 49 id. 290; Picket v. School District No. 1, 25 Wis. 552 ; Cumberland Coal Co. v.

Gordon v. Perkins

203 Cal. 183 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1928

(Cook v. Pendergast, 61 Cal. 72 ; Dawson v. Dawson, 83 Cal. App. 119 [ 256 Pac. 491 ]; Pascoe v. Baker, 158 Cal. 232 [ 110 Pac. 815 ]; San Jose Hospital v. Etherton, 84 Cal. … (Brown v. San Francisco Sav. Union, 122 Cal. 648 [ 55 Pac. 598 ]; Lakeshore Cattle Co. v. Modoc etc. Co., 108 Cal. 261 [ 41 Pac. 472 ]; McKenzie v. Barling, 101 Cal. 459 [ 36 Pac. 8 ].)

Wheeler v. West

71 Cal. 126 · California Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1886

(Mecham v. McKay, 37 Cal. 165 ; Ponce v. McElvy, 51 Cal. 222 .) 3. … (Riddle v. Brown, 20 Ala. 412 ; S. C., 56 Am. Dec. 202 ; Funk v. Halderman, 58 Pa. St. 229; Gillette v. Treganza, 6 Wis. 343 ; Grubb v. Bayard, 2 Wall. Jr. 81 ; Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St. 483; Dal v.

Forrester v. Flores

64 Cal. 24 · California Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1883

(Blum v. Robertson, 24 Cal. 129 .) Here, the pleadings on which the plaintiffs’ motion was made deny the very existence of the alleged agreement; it was therefore a matter in issue. … (Browne on Frauds, § 461; Fry on Specific Performance, § 403; Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, § 761.)

Nordyke v. King

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 761 · California Supreme Court · Apr 22, 2002

Dissenting Opinion by BROWN, J. … (See, e.g., Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 292 , 219 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d 840 .)

Thompson v. Hoge

30 Cal. 179 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1866

.: One of the points upon which the defendants rely, is that the resolution of intention to grade the street, which was passed by the Board of Supervisors in March, 1862, was pot presented to the President of the Board of … The point was considered in Creighton v.

Allen v. State Bar

36 Cal. 2d 683 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1951

The Board of Governors approved the committee’s findings but recommended 60 days’ suspension. … The case is closely analogous to Hollinan v.

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

48 Cal. 2d 655 · California Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1957

(Helling v. Schindler, 145 Cal. 303 [ 78 P. 710 ] ; Church v. Headrick & Brown, 101 Cal.App.2d 396, 413 [ 225 P.2d 558 ].) The reason for the rule was well stated in Sappenfield v. Main St. etc. R. R. … Gray, 81 Cal.App.2d 783, 789 [ 185 P.2d 27 ] ; Frymire v. Brown, 94 Cal.App.2d 334, 341 [ 210 P.2d 707 ]).

Coachella Valley County Water District v. Stevens

206 Cal. 400 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1929

(See Islais Creck Reclamation Dist. v. All Persons, 200 Cal. 277 [ 252 Pac. 1043 ]; Robinson v. Kerrigan, 151 Cal. 40, 50 [ 121 Am. St. Rep. 90 , 12 Ann. Gas. 829, 90 Pac. 129 ].) … (See Miller v. Bay Cities Water Co., 157 Cal. 256, 288 [27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 772, 107 Pac. 115 ].)

People v. McGuire

32 Cal. 140 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1867

For the purpose of canvassing the returns the Board are required to convene on the tenth day after the election. (Sec. *142 6.) … (Dobbins v. The Board of Supervisors of Yuba County, 5 Cal. 414 .)

People v. Lee

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 625 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1999

As this court recently explained in People v. … (Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 195, fn. 1 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).)

Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co.

49 Cal. 2d 764 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1958

Co. v. … “Every director is entitled to an opportunity to be present and participate in the deliberations of the board and to express his opinion with respect to any proposed action.” (Hill Dredging Corp. v.

In Re Bonds of S. San Joaquin Irrigation Dist.

161 Cal. 345 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1911

The fact that the provision of the irrigation law of 1897 for an appeal to the superior court from the determination of the board of supervisors has been declared unconstitutional (Chinn v. … The argument is fully met and conclusively answered in Nevada Bank of San Francisco v. Board of Supervisors of Kern Co., 5 Cal. App. 638 , [ 91 Pac. 122 ]. *348 5.

Southwest Exploration Co. v. County of Orange

44 Cal. 2d 549 · California Supreme Court · May 10, 1955

(See also Buswell v. Board of Supervisors of Alameda County (1897), 116 Cal. 351 [ 48 P. 226 ].) … (See Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1945), 25 Cal.2d 918, 922 [ 156 P.2d 1 ]; Richfield Oil Corp. v. Crawford (1952), 39 Cal.2d 729, 736 [ 249 P.2d 600 ]; Nelson v.

Yager v. Yager

7 Cal. 2d 213 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1936

(Beaton v. Reid, 111 Cal. 484 [ 44 Pac. 167 ]; Simonson v. Burr, 121 Cal. 582 [ 54 Pac. 87 ] ; Eby v. Foster, 61 Cal. 282 .) It will defeat an existing attachment lien. (Lucci v. … (Brown v. Brown, 170 Cal. 1 [ 147 Pac. 1168 ] ; Metropolis etc. Sav. Bank v. Barnet, 165 Cal. 449 [ 132 Pac. 833 ] ; People v. Holladay, 68 Cal. 439 [ 9 Pac. 655 ]; People’s Sav. Bank v.

Howe v. Tucker

219 Cal. 193 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1933

A few of the many authorities which might be cited are: Eckstrand v. Wilshusen, supra; Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers, 205 Cal. 515 [ 274 Pac. 977 ]; Jacobs v. C. H. Smith Lumber Co., supra; Sheeley v. … Code; Phelps v. Mayers, 126 Cal. 549 [ 58 Pac. 1048 ] ; Meyer v. Weber, 133 Cal. 681 [ 65 Pac. 1110 ]). Nor because under the recent case of Bank of Italy v.