Case law

People v. Mueller

168 Cal. 521 · California Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1914

Such districts are laid out by the supervisors of the particular county and the proceedings of such county boards are governed by the same rule as those of a city council in this respect; their orders and ordinances are not … The holding of the election and the record of the result are matters in all essentials similar to the records of the votes and resolutions of city councils and county boards by which ordinances are adopted and passed.

Codiga v. State Bar

20 Cal. 3d 788 · California Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978

Co. v. Superior Court (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 579, 590 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 561 ]; Lysick v. Walcom (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 136, 147 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 406 , 28 A.L.R.3d 368 ].) … (Sullins v: State Bar (1975) 15 Cal.3d 609, 622 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 471 , 542 P.2d 631 ]; Lewis v. State Bar (1973) 9 Cal.3d 704, 713 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 511 P.2d 1173 ].)

People v. Nicolosi

4 Cal. Unrep. 341 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1893

The shanty had but one window, and that was darkened by boards nailed on the inside, and a gunny-sack on the outside. … Chambers, 18 Cal. 383 ; People v. Velarde, 59 Cal. 457 . 2.

Girvin v. Simon

127 Cal. 491 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1900

In People v. O’Neil, 51 Cal. 91 , the appeal to the board of supervisors was taken regularly and in proper time. The court said: “The board had no power to dismiss this appeal, and it must be regarded as still pending. … In Mahoney v. Braverman, 54 Cal. 569 , cited by appellant, the court pointed out the distinction between that case and People v. O’ Neil, supra, and approved the latter case.

In Re Hatch

10 Cal. 2d 147 · California Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1937

In Beck v. … De Mille Productions v. Woolery, 61 Fed. (2d) 45.)

Big Jim Mines, Inc. v. Superior Court

9 Cal. 2d 503 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1937

(State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court, ante, p. 252 [ 70 Pac. (2d) 482 ]; Traffic Truck Sales Co. v. Justice’s Court, 192 Cal. 377 [ 220 Pac. 306 ].)

Green v. Obledo

29 Cal. 3d 126 · California Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1981

(Allen v. Humboldt County Board of Supervisors (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 877, 884 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 232 ].) … Proc., § 338, subd. 1; Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 427, 429-430 [ 116 P.2d 37 , 136 A.L.R. 800 ].)

People v. Linda Vista Irrigation District

128 Cal. 477 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1900

When the case of Tregea v. Modesto Irr. Dist., supra, was before this court (Board of Directors v. … Dist. v.

St. Clair v. McAlister

216 Cal. 95 · California Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1932

(Connor v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 189 Cal. 1 [26 A. L. R 1462, 207 Pac. 378 ]; McCurrie v. Southern Pac. Co., 122 Cal. 558 *98 [55 Pac. 324]; Osgood v. Los Angeles etc. Co., 137 Cal. 280 [ 92 Am. St. … (Kilgore v. Brown, 90 Cal. App. 555, 560 [ 266 Pac. 297 ].)

County of Los Angeles v. Rockhold

3 Cal. 2d 192 · California Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1935

(Reclamation Board v. Chambers, 46 Cal. App. 476 [ 189 Pac. 479 ] ; Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Riley, 199 Cal. 668 [ 251 Pac. 207 ]; Reclamation Board v. Riley, 206 Cal. 661 [ 284 Pac. 668 ].) … In Chapman v.

Tapscott v. Mexican Colo. River Land Co.

153 Cal. 664 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 1908

The complaint then alleges that upon receipt of the $271,359 from the Mexican corporation, and upon the execution of the deeds by the California corporation, certain of the members of the board of directors of the California … Co. v. Pierce, 90 Cal. 131 , [ 27 Pac. 44 ] ; Kohl v. Lilienthal, 81 Cal. 378 , [ 20 Pac. 401 , 22 Pac.. 689] ; Vercoutere v. Golden State L. Co., 116 Cal. 411 , [ 48 Pac. 375 ] ; Schaake v.

Suhr v. Lauterbach

164 Cal. 591 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1913

(Klienclaus v. Dutard, 147 Cal. 245 , [ 81 Pac. 516 ].) .“Where such is the condition, the demand is, in a court of equity, barred by laches.” … (Cahill v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. 42, 47 , [ 78 Pac. 767 ].)

Rutledge v. City of Eureka

195 Cal. 404 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1925

(Chase v. Trout, 146 Cal. 350 [ 80 Pac. 81 ]; Imperial Land, Co. v. Imperial Irr. Dist., 173 Cal. 660 [161 Pac. 113]; Bienfield v. Van Ness, 176 Cal. 585 [169 Pac. 225]; Oakland Pav. Co. v. … It was there held that section 4041b of the Political Code, enacted in 1919, and providing that a county board of supervisors in its discretion should have the power to appoint an advisory board to cooperate with the county

People Ex Rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino

36 Cal. 3d 476 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1984

County commissioners are appointed by county boards of supervisors (§ 2121) and prior to 1971 could adopt regulations (former § 11503). … (Jones v. Rath Packing Co. (1977) 430 U.S. 519, 525-526 [ 51 L.Ed.2d 604, 613-614 , 97 S.Ct. 1305 ]; De Canas v.

Loma Portal Civic Club v. American Airlines, Inc.

61 Cal. 2d 582 · California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1964

(Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Nebraska etc. Board of Equalization & Assessment, 347 U.S. 590 [ 74 S.Ct. 757 , 98 L.Ed. 967 ]; in this case it was noted that many states have aeronautics acts (see, e.g., Pub. … The board of viewers found as a fact that the county had ‘ ‘ taken ’ ’ an interest in Griggs ’ land. The airlines were no longer involved. It was yet another appeal, Griggs v.

Stephens v. Toomey

51 Cal. 2d 864 · California Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1959

(People v. Williams, 27 Cal.2d 220, 228 [ 163 P.2d 692 ]; People v. Goldstein, 32 Cal. 432, 433 ; 14 Cal.Jur.2d 493.) Robbery of the first degree is punishable by imprisonment in state prison and is an infamous crime. … In Meyer v.

Kistler v. Vasi

71 Cal. 2d 261 · California Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1969

The facts thus parallel those in Bargioni v. … (See also Brown v. Jensen (1953) 41 Cal.2d 193, 197-198 [ 259 P.2d 425 ].) *263 After the Bargioni ease was decided, the Legislature amended section 580b.

Lloyd v. Murphy

25 Cal. 2d 48 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1944

The principles of frustration have been repeatedly applied to leases by the courts of this state (Brown v. Oshiro, 58 Cal.App.2d 190 [ 136 P.2d 29 ]; Davidson v. … business to be carried on in the leased premises but only limits or restricts it, thereby making it less profitable and more difficult to continue, the lease is not terminated or the lessee excused from further performance (Brown

First National Bank v. Silva

200 Cal. 494 · California Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1927

In neither the Wilson v. Donaldson case, nor in the case of Mortgage Securities Co. v. … “The case of Guinn v.

People v. Sherman

3 Cal. Unrep. 851 · California Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1893

When the prosecution rested, the defendant called as a witness Esther Brown, who testified that she had been in the county jail, and that “Miss Prank’s room and mine were right alongside.” … The court had a right, therefore, to make the amendments, and its action cannot be complained of: People v. Dodge, 30 Cal. 448 ; People v. Hall, 94 Cal. 595 , 30 Pac. 7 .