Case law

Producers Transportation Co. v. Railroad Commission

176 Cal. 499 · California Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1917

"While, as said in Holabird v. … “Where the jurisdiction of a board depends on the existence of certain facts, the board has jurisdiction to determine whether or not those facts exist.” (Great Western Power Co. v.

McMenomy v. Baud

87 Cal. 134 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1890

(Tuebner v. Cal. St. R. R. Co., 66 Cal. 171 ; Sullivan v. Royer, 72 Cal. 248 ; 1 Am. St. Rep. 51 ; Cooley on Torts, 2d ed., 714 et seq.; Wood on Nuisances, secs. 144, 151, 556, 559, 565; Carson v. Central R. R. … Co., 35 Cal. 332; Brown v.

Norwood v. Kenfield

30 Cal. 393 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1866

counted Macomber’s vote for the respondent and took from the contestant the votes of Gann el and Johnson, it is still impossible to say from the record whether such action changed the result of the election as declared by the Board … (Searcy v. Grow, 15 Cal. 117 .) Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Rogers v. De Cambra

132 Cal. 502 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1901

In Steel v. St. Louis Smelting etc. Co., 106 U. … “Being judicial in character, the acts of such boards and officers cannot be delegated. The law presumes they discharge their duties (Code Civ.

Chesney v. Byram

15 Cal. 2d 460 · California Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1940

Co. v. … by such board is used as the basis for the tax rate required to raise revenue for the maintenance of the government.

Kingston Constructors, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

14 Cal. 4th 939 · California Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1997

v. … Kingston quotes our statement in Brown v. Pitchess, supra, 13 Cal.3d at page 521 : “The phrase ‘original jurisdiction’. . . does not mean exclusive jurisdiction.” That is true. But it is of no benefit to its position.

Green v. Ralee Engineering Co.

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 16 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1998

BROWN, J. I dissent. I “Because air safety ranks somewhere in pecking order between motherhood and the American flag, it would be easy to concur fully in the majority opinion.” (F.A.A. v. … Baxter, J., and Brown, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Tuffree v. Stearns Ranchos Co.

124 Cal. 306 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1899

In Plummer v. … Brady v.

City of Los Angeles v. Teed

112 Cal. 319 · California Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1896

a two-thirds vote of the members of such board or council. … (Opinion of Judges, 81 Me. 602 ; Hotchkiss v. Marion, 12 Mont. 218 ; Commissioners of Marion County v. Commissioners etc., 26 Kan. 181, 201 ; Poughkeepsie v. Quintara, 65 Hun, 141 .) The case of Doon Tp. v.

E. B. Ackerman Importing Co. v. City of Los Angeles

61 Cal. 2d 595 · California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1964

Co. v. … The court distinguished Bisso v.

Shanklin v. Gray

111 Cal. 88 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1896

In Eyre v. … That there can be but a single penalty for past delinquencies, see Loveland v.

Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of California

6 Cal. 4th 1112 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1993

(E.g., Benton v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 Cal. App.3d 1467, 1481-1483 [ 277 Cal. … (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 410 , 801 P.2d 1161 ]; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.

Knox v. City of Orland

4 Cal. 4th 132 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1992

State Board of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 231 [ 149 Cal. … If the language is clear, courts should construe a statute according to the usual and ordinary meaning of the words, unless to do so would produce absurd results ( Brown v.

Prince v. City & County of San Francisco

48 Cal. 2d 472 · California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1957

In the case of First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. … (See Allied Architects’ Assn. v. Payne, 192 Cal. 431 [ 221 P. 209 , 30 A.L.R. 1029 ] ; Veterans’ Welfare Board v. Riley, 188 Cal. 607, 611 *475 [ 206 P. 631 ].) In the case of First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v.

Rotea v. Izuel

14 Cal. 2d 605 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1939

The claim here involved was made by plaintiff against the estate of Antonio *607 Izuel, deceased, for services performed in furnishing room, board and nursing care to said Eugenia Izuel from 1916 until the time of her death … Plaintiff alleged that he furnished room, board and nursing care for said Eugenia Izuel for said period of approximately 16 years “at the special instance and request of said Antonio Izuel” and that the reasonable value of

Higgins v. City of San Diego

131 Cal. 294 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1901

Other cases dealing with this provision of the constitution are Shaw v. Statler, 74 Cal. 258 ; Schwartz v. Wilson, 75 Cal. 502 ; Smith v. Broderick, 107 Cal. 644 1 ; Weaver v. San Francisco, 111 Cal. 319 ; McBean v. … In Potter v.

King v. Central Bank

18 Cal. 3d 840 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1977

See Chief Justice Taney, License Cases, 5 How. 504 , recanting views he had pressed upon the Court as Attorney General of Maryland in Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 . … Andrews v. Styrap [Eng.] 26 L.T.R.(N.S.) 704, 706. And Mr.

Harnett v. Central Pacific Railroad

78 Cal. 31 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1888

On the contrary, the evidence established that the plaintiff, with his companions, contrary to the orders of the persons in charge of the switch-engine No. 44, got upon the foot-board in front of said engine, which was a … Justice McFarland in Nolly v.

Payne v. English

101 Cal. 10 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1894

The following language used by this court in deciding the case of Oreña v. … This question having been decided against their contention, they, as members of the board of state harbor commissioners, are by the statute given no control over the strip. (Political Code, sec. 2524.)

People v. Johnsen

10 Cal. 5th 1116 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2021

(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 396 (Brown).) … (People v. Bunyard (2009) 45 Cal.4th 836, 860–861; see also Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 402; People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 1014 (O’Malley).)