Case law

Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga

37 Cal. 4th 685 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2005

(See San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571, 577-578 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 , 828 P.2d 147 ].) … (See Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 198, 205-206 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 19 ] [“reverse logic” does not compel the conclusion that an allegedly excessive fee was a tax].)

Johnson v. State Bar

4 Cal. 2d 744 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1935

(See, also, Allen v. State Bar, 218 Cal. 19 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 107 ], and Shaeffer v. State Bar, 220 Cal. 681 [ 32 Pac. (2d) 140 ].) … (See Herron v. State Bar, 212 Cal. 196 [ 298 Pac. 474 ].)

People v. Cox

135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272 · California Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2003

Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 540-544 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 726 P.2d 516 ] (Brown), reversed on another issue sub nomine California v. … J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Brown, J., concurred.

Ex parte Wall

48 Cal. 279 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

(Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646 ; Barto v. Himrod, 8 N. Y. 483 ; Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome, 18 N. Y. 38 ; Starin v. The Town of Genoa, 23 N. Y. 429 ; Clark v. The City of Rochester, 28 N. Y. 605 ; Thorn v. … State, 5 Iowa, 491 ; *314 State v. Beneke, 9 Iowa, 203 ; State v. Weir, 33 Iowa, 134 ; Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342 ; Meshmeier v. State, 11 Ind. 482 ; State v. Swisher, 17 Tex. 441 ; State v. Panker, 26 Vt. 362 .)

Serra Retreat v. County of Los Angeles

35 Cal. 2d 755 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1950

Neither the priests nor the lay-brothers receive any “remuneration whatsoever for their services excepting board, room and maintenance,” and all “work under a vow of poverty.” … As discussed in the opinion this day filed in the six consolidated hospital cases, Cedars of Lebanon Hospital v. County of Los Angeles, L. A.

Engebretson v. City of San Diego

185 Cal. 475 · California Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1921

In Higgins v. … (Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110 , [ 23 Am. St. Rep. 451 , 26 Pac. 646 ]; Whittaker v. County of Tuolumne, 96 Cal. 100 , [ 30 Pac. 1016 ].)

People v. Ward

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 464 · California Supreme Court · Sep 7, 2005

(People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 401; People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 276.) K. … (People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 404.) L.

People v. Rindge

174 Cal. 743 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1917

hereafter so declared by the board of supervisors. … (Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 642 ; Cerf v. Pfleging, 94 Cal. 131 , [ 29 Pac. 417 ]; Niles v. City of Los Angeles, 125 Cal. 572 , [ 58 Pac. 190 ].)

California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Accident Commission

21 Cal. 2d 751 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1943

Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., supra.) See, also, Di Renzo v. … Co. v. Industrial Acc.

Card v. Boms

210 Cal. 200 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1930

(Hughes v. Hartman, 206 Cal. 199 [ 273 Pac. 560 ].) … (People v. Fowler, 30 Cal. App. 183 [ 157 Pac. 540 ]; People v. Franklin, 46 Cal. App. 1 [ 188 Pac. 607 ] ; People v. Wilson, 76 Cal. App. 688 [ 245 Pac. 781 ].)

Geary v. Boardman

146 Cal. 105 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1905

acres with a board fence, and usep the land for farming and cattle-raising. … (See Stanley v. Green, 12 Cal. 148 , where Field, J., delivering the opinion of the court, elaborately discusses the subject.)

Hannan v. McNickle

82 Cal. 122 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1889

(Tyler v. Fickett, 75 Me. 211 ; Guthrie v. Holt, 9 Baxt. 527 ; Buell v. Irvin, 24 Mich. 145 .) … Musson, 9 Vt. 37 ; Browning v. Estes, 3 Tex. 476 ; 49 Am. Dec. 760 ; Bishop v. Truett, 85 Ala. 376 .) Judgment and order appealed from affirmed.

Carlisle v. Tulare County

5 Cal. Unrep. 701 · California Supreme Court · May 29, 1897

In Pritchett v. … In Prince v.

Pixley v. Saunders

168 Cal. 152 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1914

The following language from the case of Wilson v. Board of Trustees of Sanitary District, [133 111. 443, 466], 27 N. … (Reeves v. Treasurer of Wood County, 8 Ohio St. 333 ; Thompson v. Treasurer of Wood County, 11 Ohio St. 678 ; Anderson v. Drainage Co., 14 Ind. 199 , [ 77 Am. Dec. 63 ]; O’Reiley v. Drain Co., 32 Ind. 169 ; Sessions v.

Simoneau v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.

166 Cal. 264 · California Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1913

(Siemers v. Isen, 54 Cal. 418 ; Driscoll v. Cable Ry. Co., 97 Cal. 553 , [ 33 Am. St. Rep. 203 , 32 P. 591 ]; McCune v. Santa Clara M. L. Co., 110 Cal. 480 , [ 42 P. 980 ]; Stein v. … In Cook v. Clay St. Ry. Co., 60 Cal. 604 , the wife had been an invalid for eight years prior to the death of her husband. In Evarts v. Santa Barbara etc. Ry.

County of Santa Clara v. Hayes Co.

43 Cal. 2d 615 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1954

Under these circumstances the principle stated in Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs., 18 Cal.2d 427 [ 116 P.2d 37 , 136 A.L.R. 800 ], is applicable. … (See Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs., supra, 18 Cal.2d 427, 430 .) As was pointed out in Santa Clara County v.

In re Estate of James

99 Cal. 374 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1893

(Dilson v. Dilson, 4 R. I. 87; Leith v. Leith, 39 N. H. 20; Gould v. Crow, 57 Mo. 200 ; 2 Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, 6th ed., secs. 156, 157, 199 e. See also Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 734 , 735; Cheely v. … (Head v. Daniels, 38 Kan. 1 ; Rowe v. Palmer, 29 Kan. 337 ; Frankfurth v. Anderson, 61 Wis. 107 ; Van Fleet’s Collateral Attack, sec. 61. See also Blondeau v. Snyder, 95 Cal. 521 .) The complaint in James v.

Kirsch v. Kirsch

83 Cal. 633 · California Supreme Court · May 2, 1890

(Hiatt v. Board of Trustees, 65 Cal. 481; Spiers v. Duane, 54 Cal. 176 ; Cave v. Crafts, 53 Cal. 141 ; Van Maren v. Johnson, 15 Cal. 313 .) The judgment is affirmed. Sharpstein, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

Antonelle v. Kennedy & Shaw Lumber Co.

140 Cal. 309 · California Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1903

Co. v. Butter, 50 Cal. 577 ; Deacon v. Blodgett, 111 Cal. 418 .) … Proc., sec. 469; Carter v. Baldwin, 95 Cal. 478 ; Amador v. Amador, 114 Cal. 348 ; Stockton v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 121 Cal. 171 .)

Ruiz v. Podolsky

50 Cal. 4th 838 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 2010

In Madden , we considered an employee’s challenge to an arbitration agreement the Board of Administration of the State Employees Retirement System (Board) entered into on behalf of the employee as part of a larger agreement … Code, former § 22751 et seq.), the Legislature entrusted to the Board the authority to make group medical plans available to state employees, but neither expressly granted nor withheld authority for the Board to agree to