Case law

Board of Port Commissioners v. Williams

9 Cal. 2d 381 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1937

The case of Larue Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. … (Brown v. Ferdon, 5 Cal. (2d) 226 [ 54 Pac. (2d) 712 ].) When the city assumed to make the lease broader than the language of the act permitted its action was to that extent ultra vires and hence void. (Reams v.

Board of Education v. Common Council

128 Cal. 369 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1900

In San Diego School Dist. v. Supervisors, 97 Cal. 439 , a "writ of mandate had been issued to the board of supervisors and an appeal taken from the .judgment to this court. … (Merrill on Mandamus, sec. 75; Moses on Mandamus, 88; Boyne v. Ryan, 100 Cal. 267 ; Cristman v. Peck, 90 Ill. 151 ; State ex rel. Vereen v. Marion County Commrs., 27 Fla. 438 ; State v. Archibald, 43 Minn. 332 .)

State Land Settlement Board v. Henderson

197 Cal. 470 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1925

(San Francisco v. McGovern, 28 Cal. App. 491 [ 152 Pac. 980 ].) … Co. v.

Cartwright v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners

16 Cal. 3d 762 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1976

(See Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 68 Cal.2d 67, 73 .) … (Lorenz v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 46 Cal.2d 684, 687 .)

Javor v. State Board of Equalization

12 Cal. 3d 790 · California Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1974

(Board of Education v. Watson (1966) 63 Cal.2d 829, 836, fn. 3 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 481 , 409 P.2d 481 ]; see Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).) … Since the Board has a “vital interest in the integrity of the sales tax” (Decorative Carpets, Inc. v.

Tringham v. State Board of Education

50 Cal. 2d 507 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1958

Proc., § 1094.5; Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners, 32 Cal.2d 301 [ 196 P.2d 20 ].) … Instead, the board asserts, the court, acting in an appellate capacity, reviewed the record of the proceedings before the board to see if there was substantial evidence to support the order of revocation, and erroneously

Gamble v. Board of Osteopathic Examiners

21 Cal. 2d 215 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1942

(In re Rust, 181 Cal. 73 [ 183 P. 548 ]; People v. Jordan, 172 Cal. 391 [ 156 P. 451 ]; People v. Ratledge, 172 Cal. 401 [ 156 P. 455 ]; Ex parte Gerino, 143 Cal. 412 [ 77 P. 166 , 66 L.R.A. 249 ]; People v. … Mills, 74 Cal.App. 353 [240 P. 296]; People v. Chong, 28 Cal.App. 121 [ 151 P. 553 ]; Bohannon v. Board of Medical Examiners, 24 Cal.App. 215 [ 140 P. 1089 ]; Crane v.

Norman v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

34 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1983

The Board and the Department appeal. … (Syrek v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1960) 54 Cal.2d 519, 529 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 354 P.2d 625 ]; Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins.

Camper v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

3 Cal. 4th 679 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1992

Camper also argues that our recent decision in Poster v. Southern Cal. … (See Tielsch v.

Pearl v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 308 · California Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2001

(Bowen v. Board of Retirement (1986) 42 Cal.3d 572, 578 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 814 , 724 P.2d 500 ].) … (See, e.g., Board of Administration v. Ind. Acc.

Greener v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

6 Cal. 4th 1028 · California Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1993

In Loustalot v. … Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 ]; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v.

Tracy v. Contractors' State License Board

63 Cal. 2d 598 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1965

(See also Fraenkel v. Bank of America, 40 Cal.2d 845, 848 [2] [ 256 P.2d 569 ]; Hope v. Contractors’ etc. Board, supra, 228 Cal.App.2d 414, 419 .) … (Martin v. Alcoholic Beverage etc. Appeals Board, 52 Cal.2d 287, 293 [8] [ 341 P.2d 296 ]; Bonham v. McConnell, 45 Cal. 2d 304, 306 [ 288 P.2d 502 ].)

Truman v. Board of Supervisors

110 Cal. 128 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1895

Assuming, but not deciding, that this court could control législative action of the board of supervisors, as prayed for in this proceeding, the writ must be denied, because under present statutory law the board of supervisors

Hager v. Board of Supervisors

50 Cal. 473 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

Kahn v. Board of Supervisors

2 Cal. Unrep. 729 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1886

On the authority of Kahn v. Bauer, ante, p. 728 (No. 11,764, this day decided), motion denied, with leave to respondent to answer within ten days.

Robertson v. Board of Library Trustees

136 Cal. 403 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1902

Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 .) In Barber v. Mulford, 117 Cal. 356 , the court say: “The complaint or affidavit stated facts sufficient to show that the board of education owes a duty to plaintiff. … (See, also, People v. Board of Auditors, 5 Mich. 223 ; Williams v. Clayton, 6 Utah 86 ; State v. Richter, 37 Wis. 275 ; People v.

Brock & Co. v. Board of Supervisors

8 Cal. 2d 286 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1937

Ed. 131 ]; Merchants’ Transfer Co. v. Board of Review, 128 Iowa, 732 , [ 105 N. W. 211 , 5 Ann. Cas. 1016, 2 L. R. A. (N. … Coal Co. v. Bates, supra, which was decided on the authority of Brown v. Houston, supra. There is nothing in the case of Frick v.

Board of Osteopathic Examiners v. Riley

192 Cal. 158 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1923

by necessary implication, by the adoption of the budget amendment to the constitution on November 7, 1922, this contention has been sufficiently answered by the decision of this court in the recent case of Railroad Com. v. … of Osteopathic Examiners in a special fund in the state treasury and that the claims of said board for salaries and expenses should be drawn upon said fund and be payable out of the same, the decision in Railroad Com. v.

Martin v. Board of Supervisors

103 Cal. 668 · California Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1894

It is quite clear from the statute that the board of supervisors must own the lot upon which the building is erected and must convey it, after the completion of the building, to the board of education, who must “hold” it … It is needless to inquire whether the title must be in absolute fee simple; for here the board has no title at all.

Zeeb v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

67 Cal. 2d 496 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1967

The petitioner and board in their briefs discuss only this issue. … (McCoy v. Industrial Acc. Com., supra, 64 Cal.2d 82, 89 .) The order is annulled, and the respondent board is directed to determine this controversy in accordance with the views herein expressed. Traynor, C.