Case law

Rubio v. Superior Court

24 Cal. 3d 93 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1979

See, e.g., Nyquist v. Mauclet (1977) 432 U.S. 1 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 63 , 97 S.Ct. 2120 ] (financial assistance for higher education); Examining Board v. … (Ramirez v. Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 199, 207-211 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 507 P.2d 1345 ]; revd. on other grounds sub nom. Richardson v.

Maxwell v. City of Santa Rosa

53 Cal. 2d 274 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1959

Both mandamus and certiorari are also available, in proper eases, to review the determinations of city boards and councils (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5; Nathan H. Schur, Inc. v. … (Boren v. State Personnel Board, 37 Cal.2d 634, 638 [ 234 P.2d 981 ].)

Jeppi v. Brockman Holding Co.

34 Cal. 2d 11 · California Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1949

In Carrier v. … McCartney v. Clover Valley Land & Stock Co., (8 Cir.) 232 P. 697 [ 146 C.C.A. 623 ], citing Boggs v. Lakeport Agricultural Ass'n., 11 1 Cal. 354 [ 43 P. 1106 ].” Yet in Corporation of America v.

INT'L BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. v. Truck Ins. Exch.

2 Cal. 3d 1026 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1970

Corp. v. Brown (1962) 35 Ill. App.2d 43 [ 181 N.E.2d 191 ]. [6] Red Line's insurer, Truck, also contends that even if IBM was a user of the truck, the injury to Hatton was not caused by IBM's use. As we noted in Entz v. … Corp. v. Brown, supra, 35 Ill. App.2d 43 [ 181 N.E.2d 191, 194 ]: that the use of the vehicle must be the "efficient and predominating cause" of the injury. That language, however, does nothing but obscure matters.

Gillum v. Johnson

7 Cal. 2d 744 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1936

Whether the benefit paying feature of the pooled fund plan of our state law will meet the tests laid down in the Railroad Retirement Act case (Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U. S. 330 [55 Sup. … Ed. 713 ]; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27 [24 Sup. Ct. 769, 49 L. Ed. 78 , 1 Ann. Cas. 561]; Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U. S. 124 [50 Sup. Ct. 46, 74 L. Ed. 226 ] ; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509 [19 Sup.

Fraser v. California Street Cable Railroad

146 Cal. 714 · California Supreme Court · May 9, 1905

Without substantial conflict, the evidence shows that the plaintiff as a passenger boarded defendant’s car going west on California Street at the northwest corner of .California and Sansome streets. … The cases of Lee v. Market-Street Ry. Co., 135 Cal. 295 , Esrey v. Southern Pacific Co., 103 Cal. 541 , and other eases cited by appellant bear very little analogy to the case in hand.

Anglo London Paris Co. v. Johnson

194 Cal. 712 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1924

Such in effect was the conclusion of the supreme court of Washington in the ease of Richards v. … As was pointed out in a recent decision of this court involving a somewhat analogous situation (Anglo London Paris Co. v.

Halleck v. Mixer

16 Cal. 574 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1860

(Brown v. Sax, 7 Cow. 95 ; Baker v. Wheeler, 8 Wend. 505 ; Wingate v. Smith, 20 Maine, 287; Davis v. Easley, 13 Ill. 192 .) *579 2. … They are all commented upon and explained by that Court in Harlan v. Harlan (15 Penn. State R. 513).

Eschwig v. State Bar

24 Cal. 2d 70 · California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1944

The Board of Governors adopted the committee's findings, but recommended that petitioner be suspended from practice for a period of six months. … (Stephens v. State Bar, 19 Cal.2d 580 [ 122 P.2d 549 ]; Trusty v. State Bar, 16 Cal.2d 550 [ 107 P.2d 10 ]; Waterman v. State Bar, 8 Cal.2d 17 [ 63 P.2d 1133 ]; Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal.2d 75 [ 39 P.2d 403 ]; Marsh v.

County of San Mateo v. Maloney

71 Cal. 205 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1886

The assessment was not subject to be reduced by the board of equalization. … (Gaines v. Thompson, 7 Wall. 347 .) As was said in Porter v.

Frenna v. Sunnyside Land Co.

124 Cal. 437 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1899

Hpon the authority of Ryan v. Altschul, 103 Cal. 174 , and Rauer v. … In Rauer v.

Oddino v. Oddino

16 Cal. 4th 67 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1997

(In re Marriage of Levingston (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1303 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 100 ] (Levingston I); Board of Tr. of Laborers Pension Tr. v. Levingston (N.D.Cal. 1993) 816 F.Supp. 1496 (Levingston II).) … (Hein v. F.D.I.C. (3d Cir. 1996) 88 F.3d 210 , 213, italics added; see also, Larson v. Northrop Corp. (D.C.

Bradpiece v. State Bar

10 Cal. 3d 742 · California Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1974

Honoroff v. … Rptr. 657 , 454 P.2d 329 ]; Yapp v. State Bar (1965) supra, 62 Cal.2d 809, 817 ; Demain v.

Laforge v. Magee

6 Cal. 285 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

The only important question involved in this case, is the power of the board of supervisors to set apart a portion of the revenue of the county, as a fund for current expenses. … In the case of Thompson v. Rowe, 2 Cal.

Davis v. Chalfant

81 Cal. 627 · California Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1889

The following cases bear more or less directly on the general question as to the sufficiency of the complaint in this case: Long v. Smith, 39 Tex. 160 ; Seay v. Hughes, 5 Sneed, 155 ; Crim v. Handley, 94 U. … S. 652 ; Kern v. Strausberger, 71 Ill. 413 ; Brown v. Wilson, 56 Ga. 534 ; Nicholson v. Patterson, 6 Humph. 394 ; Newman v. Morris, 52 Miss. 402 ; Quinn v. Wetherbee, 41 Cal. 247 ; Boston v.

Creighton v. Manson

27 Cal. 613 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

We expressed our concurrence in this principle in Curran v. … President of the Board for approval according to the requirements of section sixty-eight of the Consolidation Act.

Lowe v. Yolo Cty. Consol. Water Co.

157 Cal. 503 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1910

In Bradley v. Iowa Central Ry. Co., 111 Iowa, 562 , [ 82 N. … of directors, who, as said in Maynard v.

Ventura County v. Clay

114 Cal. 242 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1896

(Bailey v. Sloan, 65 Cal. 387 .) … This point has been considered, but the following cases relating to the duty and responsibility of the treasurer may be added: Merriam v. Board of Supervisors, 72 Cal. 517 ; Linden v.

Bruns v. State Bar

213 Cal. 151 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1931

There is nothing in the further point that the hearing before the board of governors “was had without due process’’. (In re Peterson, 208 Cal. 42, 45 [ 280 Pac. 124 ].) … (Miller v. Higgins, 14 Cal. App. 156, 164 [ 111 Pac. 403 ].)

People v. Hastings

29 Cal. 449 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1866

D. 1863, in the months of April and May of said year, the Board of Trustees are hereby authorized and empowered to levy the annual and special taxes provided in this Act within three days after the first meeting in 1863, … In Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 632 , Mr. Justice Field says: “ In the present case the recitals show that the property was not listed and valued by the Assessor. This is fatal to the deed.