Case law

Pressler v. Donald L. Bren Co.

32 Cal. 3d 831 · California Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1982

Bd. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 203, 204 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 731 ]) or of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (e.g., Jackson & Perkins Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 166 ]). … (Kupka v. Board of Administration (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 791 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 214 ].)

Pfister v. Central Pacific Railroad

70 Cal. 169 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1886

Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. 85 ; S. C., 24 Am. Dec. 129 ; Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wend. 459 ; Miss. Cen. R. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 41 Miss. 671 ; Smith v. Boston & Maine R. R., 44 N. H. 325; Cin. & Chicago Air Line R. R. v. … Minter v. Pacific R. R., 41 Mo. 504 ; Butler v. Hudson R. R. R. Co., 3 E. D. Smith, 571; Stoneman v. Erie R. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 429 ; Sloman v. G. W. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 208 ; and Hannibal R. R. Co. 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. Bollinger

196 Cal. 191 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1925

In People v. … Jones, 63 Cal. 168 , and in People v.

Bernheim v. Porter

2 Cal. Unrep. 349 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1884

Code, sec. 2430; Kemp v. Carnley, 3 Duer (N. Y.), 1; Arnold v. Brown, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 296 .

Le Francois v. Goel

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 249 · California Supreme Court · Jun 10, 2005

(See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, § 9:327.8, p. 9(1)-107.) … Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 19 , 112 Cal.

Ex parte Mansfield

106 Cal. 400 · California Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1895

(People v. Martin, 60 Cal. 153 .) … (Commonwealth v. Gay, *407 5 Pick. 44 ; Stevens v. Dimond, 6 N. H. 330; Commonwealth v. Worcester, 3 Pick.,462.)

Pillsbury v. Superior Court

8 Cal. 2d 469 · California Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1937

If it were, then, pursuant to such cases as Keller v. Lewis, 56 Cal. 466 , Lial v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 31 *472 [ 23 Pac. (2d) 795 ], and Fair Haven & W. R. Co. v. … (Harris v. Hensley, 214 Cal. 420 [ 6 Pac. (2d) 253 ]; Brown v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. App. (2d) 693 [ 57 Pac. (2d) 965 ].) *473 The alternative writ is discharged and the application for a peremptory writ is denied.

Brush v. Smith

141 Cal. 466 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1903

(Crane v. Cummings, 137 Cal. 202 ; In re James, 99 Cal. 376 ; 1 Dryden v. Parrote, 61 Neb. 339 ; North Pacific Cycle Co. v. Thomas, 26 Or. 381 . 2 ) In the latter case the correct rule is stated by Bean, C. … (Brann v. Blum, 138 Cal. 644 ; O’Donnell v. Merguire, 131 Cal. 527 . 3 ) It follows that the judgment and order should be reversed. Haynes, C., and Smith, C., concurred.

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.

Escondido High School District v. Escondido Seminary of University of Southern California

130 Cal. 128 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1900

In Landregan v. … Section 22 of the Wright act provides: “The board of directors shall levy an assessment sufficient to raise the annual interest on the outstanding bonds,” etc. In Hughson v.

People v. Mendoza Tello

15 Cal. 4th 264 · California Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1997

(People v. Wilson, supra, at p. 936 ; People v. Pope, supra, at p. 426 .) … J„ Mosk, J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., and Brown, J., concurred. A petition for a rehearing was denied June 11, 1997, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

Estate of Leslie

37 Cal. 3d 186 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1984

. § 8341 , Brown v. Devine (N.D.Cal. 1983) 574 F. Supp. 790 , 792), under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ( 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., Powell v. … (See also Adduddell v. Board of Administration (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 243 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 268 ]; Brennfleck v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 666 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 50 ].)

Hayes v. Silver Creek & Panoche Land & Water Co.

136 Cal. 238 · California Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1902

(Mann v. Haley, 45 Cal. 63 ; Bixby v. Bent, 59 Cal. 532 .) … (Hensly v. Tartar, 14 Cal. 508 ; Buhne v. Corbett, 43 Cal. 264 ; Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 671 .)

Myers v. Nelson

5 Cal. Unrep. 344 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1896

Defendant Nelson is a member of the board of supervisors of Butte county and ex-officio road commissioner in and for his supervisor district. … See, also, Mathews v. Kinsell, 41 Cal. 512 ; Amick v. Tharp, 13 Gratt. 564 , 67 Am. Dec. 787 . The order appealed from should be affirmed. We concur: Sear Is, C.; Haynes, C. PER CURIAM.

Lemoge Electric v. County of San Mateo

46 Cal. 2d 659 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1956

Mills v. Schulba, 95 Cal. … Nevertheless, on February 2d, the board by resolution accepted the erroneous bid.

Roberts v. Brae

5 Cal. 2d 356 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1936

This identical language also appears in Southern Counties Gas Co. v. Eden, 118 Cal. App. 582, 586 [ 5 Pac. (2d) 654 ], and in Board of Trustees v. Miller, 54 Cal. … The primary inference is of a *360 valid preexisting agreement and to be valid that agreement must, have been based on a doubtful boundary line. ’ ’ This is recognized in Board of Trustees v. Miller, supra, p. 106 .

Brosterhous v. State Bar

12 Cal. 4th 315 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1995

(Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, supra, 457 U.S. at p. 506 [ 73 L.Ed.2d at p. 181 ].) … (Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, supra, 457 U.S. at p. 502, fn. 4 [ 73 L.Ed.2d at p. 179 ].)

Singh v. U. S. American Malwa Sudharak Society

5 Cal. 2d 405 · California Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1936

The other defendants are members of the governing board, referred to as the working committee or board of directors of the corporation. … (Estate of Scrimger, 188 Cal. 158 [ 206 Pac. 65 ] ; Atkinson v. Western Development Syndicate, 170 Cal. 503 [ 150 Pac. 360 ].)

Tulare Irrigation District v. Collins

154 Cal. 440 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1908

Act [Stats. 1887, p. 29], The other parties plaintiff are members of the board of directors of the irrigation district and owners of land within its territorial limits. … (Seale v. Doane, 17 Cal. 484 ; Fulton v. Hanlow, 20 Cal. 480 ; Carlton v. Townsend, 28 Cal. 219 ; San Francisco v. Cannavan, 42 Cal. 541 ; Ames v. City of San Diego, 101 Cal. 390 , [ 35 Pac. 1005 ]; San Francisco v.