Case law

Irving v. State Bar

213 Cal. 81 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1931

(See, also, Smith v. The State Bar, 211 Cal. 249 [73 A. L. R. 393, 294 Pac. 1057 ]; Shaw v. The State Bar, 212 Cal. 52 [ 297 Pac. 532 ]; Smallberg v. The State Bar, 212 Cal. 113 [ 297 Pac. 916 ].) … This is the period for which the petitioners were suspended for similar infractions in Shaw v. The State Bar, supra, and Smallberg v. The State Bar, supra.

Wheelock v. First Presbyterian Church of Los Angeles

119 Cal. 477 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1897

While it had a board of trustees, the powers and functions of that board are not set forth in the complaint and consequently we know not what they are. … In Baker v.

Martin v. County of Santa Barbara

105 Cal. 208 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1894

(Black’s Law Dictionary, title Salary; Cowdin v. Huff, 10 Ind. 85 .) … While the term salary in its original and strict sense signifies a fixed compensation it is frequently used in our constitution and laws as the equivalent of compen sation, In Kirkwood v.

Huston v. Anderson

145 Cal. 320 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1904

.: State v. Sadler, 25 Nev. 131 , 174; 1 Stinson v. Sweeny, 17 Nev. 309 ; and Lane v. Bailey, (Mont.) 75 P. 192 . See, also, note to Patton v. Watkins, 90 Am. St. Rep. 58 . … (See, in this connection, Smith v. Thomas, 121 Cal. 533 ; Stewart v. Kyser, 105 Cal. 459 .) 4.

Sevin v. State Bar

8 Cal. 3d 641 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1973

The burden is upon one seeking a review of a recommendation of the disciplinary board to show that its findings are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Eschwig v. … (Alkow v. State Bar, 3 Cal.3d 924, 936 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 278 , 479 P.2d 638 ].)

Wilson v. Cable News Network

214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 290 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 2017

Further action in this matter is deferred pending **862 consideration and disposition of a related issue in Park v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, S229728 (see Cal.

People v. Thomas

53 Cal. 4th 1276 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 2012

(People v. Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1109.) One example is People v. … Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Janet E. Neeley and Stephen G.

In Re Montgomery

163 Cal. 457 · California Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1912

In Rapp & Son v. … A. 640, 41 Pac. 411 ]; Grumbach v.

Van Loenen v. Gillespie

152 Cal. 222 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1907

Blochman v. Spreckels was decided by one department of this court, and in the other department was decided the case of Goldtree v. Spreckels, 135 Cal. 666 , [ 67 Pac. 1091 ], where the same conclusion was reached. … It is as much a specification as that condemned in Brown v.

Henderson v. Grammar

66 Cal. 332 · California Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1885

. ; Wells v. Harter, 56 Cal. 343 ; Jeffers v. Cook, 58 Cal. 147 ), and the right to-foreclose and the right to redeem were also barred. (Morris v. Goodman, 18 Cal. 482 ; Coster v. Brown, 23 Cal. 143 ; McCarthy v. … White, 21 Cal. 495; Espinosa v. Gregory, 40 Cal. 58 ; Taylor v. McLaine, 60 Cal. 651 ; Arrington v. Liscom, 34 Cal. 365 ; Cunningham v. Hawkins, 24 Cal. 403 ; Siter v. Jewett, 33 id. 92; Grattan v.

No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

13 Cal. 3d 68 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1974

(Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 259 ; accord, County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 804 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 377 ]; see Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. … (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 271.) The majority opinion in Hanly v.

People v. McGlade

139 Cal. 66 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1903

(People v. Ah Woo, 25 Cal. 206 .) … {Ex parte Finley, 66 Cal. 262 ; People v.

Judah v. Fredericks

57 Cal. 389 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

The case of White v. Joy, 13 N. … (See also, Gillah v. Fairchild, 4 Denio, 83 ; Forrest v.

Goldberg v. Bloch

39 Cal. 2d 570 · California Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1952

Stephen Brown Julius J Bloch shall not receive a dower right or be allowed to contest my wishes in any court in the United States. … (Marks v. Walter G. McCarty Corp., 33 Cal.2d 814, 820-821 [ 205 P.2d 1025 ]; McNear v. Petroleum Export Corp., 208 Cal. 162, 167-168 [ 280 P. 684 ] [citing probate eases].)

People v. Guiuan

76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 239 · California Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1998

(See, e.g., Ladson v. State (1981) 248 Ga. 470 [ 285 S.E.2d 508, 514 ]; State v. Reese (Iowa 1981) 301 N.W.2d 693, 697 ; Blizzard v. State (1976) 30 Md.App. 156 [ 351 A.2d 443, 450 ]; State v. … (Cone. & dis. opn. of Brown, J., post, at p. 579, fn. omitted.)

In Re Dixon

41 Cal. 2d 756 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1953

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 [ 73 S.Ct. 397, 420-422 , 97 L.Ed. 469 ].) … Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 [ 73 S.Ct. 397, 421-422 , 97 L.Ed. 469 ].)

Kelly v. State Bar

45 Cal. 3d 649 · California Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1988

(See, e.g., Rimel v. … In Kitsis , we noted that the Board oversees various local committees and boards, amongst which the investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative functions are divided.

Streator v. Linscott

153 Cal. 285 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1908

The complaint sets forth at length an order of the board of supervisors prescribing the form of the proposed bonds. … (McCoy v. Bryant, 53 Cal. 247 ; Hopkins v. Lovell, 47 Mo. 102 ; Polly v. Hopkins, 74 Tex. 145 , [ 11 S. W. 1084 ].)

People v. McKay

37 Cal. 2d 792 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1951

Judge Ross wrote the board of supervisors that the claim should not be paid. … (People v.

Wheeler v. County of Plumas

149 Cal. 782 · California Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1906

(Napa State Hospital v. Flaherty, 134 Cal. 315 , [ 66 Pac. 322 ]; City of Sonora v. Curtin, 137 Cal. 583 , [ 70 Pac. 674 ]; Town of Santa Monica v. Guidinger, 137 Cal. 658 , [ 70 Pac. 732 ].) … In Osborne v. Robbins, 36 N.