Case law

Carpy v. Dowdell

115 Cal. 677 · California Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1897

It may be implied from the conduct or acquiescence of the corporation, as represented by the board of directors. … (Scott v. Jackson, 89 Cal. 262 ; Dolbeer v. Livingston, 100 Cal. 621 ; Hostler v. Hays, 3 Cal. 303 ; Mitchell v. Reed, 9 Cal. 204 ; 70 Am. Dec. 647 .)

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.

People Ex Rel. Deparment of Corporations. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc.

86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 816 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1999

(Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 284, fn. 3 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 885 P.2d 950 ]; see Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-310.) A simple conflicts check would have avoided the problem. (See Weil & Brown, Cal.

People v. Morris

46 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1988

This letter, dated October 7, 1982, and signed by the Acting Chief of Police of Long *27 Beach, was addressed to the parole board. … In fact, neither of the letters to the parole board was revealed until a second search of the prosecutor’s file in August 1987.

Prager v. Isreal

15 Cal. 2d 89 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1940

As the plaintiff had one foot on the ground and the other on the running board, the ear moved forward, throwing her to the ground. … (Appeal of Houghton, 42 Cl. 35, 52; Drew v. Smith, 38 Cal. 325 333 ; Bourland v. Hildeth, 26 Cal. 161, 231 ; Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379, 393 .

MacDermot v. Grant

181 Cal. 332 · California Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1919

(Hancock, Ditch Co. v. … Co. v. Hamilton County, 79 Fed. 575 , [ 25 C. C. A. 94 ]; Warner v. Warner, 83 Kan. 548, [ 112 Pac. 97 ]; Lawyers' etc. Pub. Co. v. Gordon, 173 Mo. 139 , [ 73 S. W. 155 ]; St. Louis Board of Education v.

Green v. State Bar

213 Cal. 403 · California Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1931

The board of governors adopted the findings, but has recommended that petitioner be disbarred. This is a proceeding to review the action and recommendation of The State Bar. … In Bruns v.

In re Carrillo

66 Cal. 3 · California Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1884

That being the case, the charter of the city as to the judicial power of the city remained in full force, (Desmond v. Dunn, 55 Cal. 242 ; Wood v. … Board of Election Commissioners, 58 Cal. 561 ), and by the provisions of the charter there was established a police court for the city.

Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. McKenzie

6 Cal. Unrep. 691 · California Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1901

McBean was defeated in the lower court, but on appeal to this court the judgment was reversed, and it was declared here that his contract was not illegal, and that he was entitled to recover the amount due thereon: McBean v. … McBean, prior to the allowance of plaintiff’s demand as hereinbefore stated, presented a certified copy of his judgment to the board of trustees, and demanded that it should be audited and allowed; but the board denied the

People v. Poggi

45 Cal. 3d 306 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1988

(See People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 536, fn. 6 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 637 , 709 P.2d 440 ], revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ]; People v. … In People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 538-544 , however, we rejected that very contention. Defendant presents us with no compelling reason to reconsider our holding.

Martin v. Zellerbach

38 Cal. 300 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

The following cases were affirmed on authority of Hutton v. JPrisbie ( 37 Cal. 475 .) KNOWLES v. GREENWOOD. TRUE v. TORMEY et al, FOWLER v. FRISBIE. TRUE v. THOMAS. DIXON v. BROWNLIE, MARTIN v. FRISBIE. BROWN v. … WHITNEY v. THOMAS.

Estate of Teel

34 Cal. 2d 349 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1949

(Dixon v. Russell, supra, 9 Cal.2d 262 ; Wall v. Brown, 162 Cal. 307 [ 122 P. 478 ]; Brandon v. Faria, 99 Cal.App. 594 [ 279 P. 192 ].) … In Leupe v.

Pacific Gas Etc. Co. v. State of California

214 Cal. 369 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1931

The appellant elected to pay under protest, and thereafter presented *372 a claim for the amount to the board of control and department of finance (Pol. Code, sec. 667). … Watson v. Bank of Tennessee, 3 Baxt. (62 Tenn.) 395; State v. State Dispensary Commission, 79 S. C. 316 [ 60 S. E. 928 ]; Board of Supervisors v. Auditor-General, 68 Mich. 659 [ 39 N. W. 794 ]; O’Neil v. State, 223 N.

Willis v. Wozencraft

22 Cal. 607 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1863

Co. v. Farr, 4 Watts & Sergeant, 374; Willing v. Brown, 7 S. & R., 467; Thomas v. Wright, 9 Id. 91) even against the holder of the legal title. (Presbyterian Congregation v. Johnson, 1 Watts & Serg. 56 .) … (Wykoff v. Wykoff, 8 Watts & Serg. 481 ; Ives v. Cress, 5 Barr. 188; Hull v. Vaughn, 6 Price’s Ex. 157.)

People v. Ault

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 302 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2004

In People v. … County of Orange (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 944, 955 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 176 ] (Andrews) [juror misconduct]; People v. Brown (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 476, 481-482 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 217 ] (Brown) [juror misconduct]; Clemens v.

City of Long Beach v. Vickers

55 Cal. 2d 153 · California Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1961

its land, the board directed respondent to execute the unit agreements and unit operating agreements. … Co. v. Hamilton, 161 Cal. 610, 617-620 [ 119 P. 1073 , 37 L.R.A. N.S. 686]; Boone v. Kingsbury, 206 Cal. 148, 184 [ 273 P. 797 ]; City of Long Beach v. Marshall, 11 Cal.2d 609, 621 [ 82 P.2d 362 ]; see also Mallon v.

Seaboard Surety Corp. of America v. Municipal Court

208 Cal. 596 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1929

Washburn v. Lyons, 97 Cal. 314 [ 32 Pac. 310 ], People v. Pool, 27 Cal. 573 , 581, and Abbey v. Board of Directors, 58 Cal.

Hills v. Sherwood

33 Cal. 474 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1867

(United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103 .) … (United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103 ; Thornton v. Mahoney, 24 Cal. 569 .)

Morris v. Courtney

120 Cal. 63 · California Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1898

Prior to that time, to wit, on January 30,1892, he had, by a deed duly executed and recorded on February 5, 1892, conveyed to the board of supervisors of said county a strip thirty feet wide off the entire east and north … (Citing many cases, including Alvarez v. Brannan, supra. See, also, Groppengiesser v. Lake, 103 Cal. 37 ; Cabot v. Christie, 42 Vt. 121 ; 1 Am. Rep. 313 ; Haight v. Hayt, 19 N. Y. 464 ; Speed v.

McCann v. Jordan

218 Cal. 577 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1933

(McCann v. Jordan, 217 Cal. 506 [ 20 Pac. (2d) 47 ].) … (Brougher v. Board of Public Works, 205 Cal. 426 [ 271 Pac. 487 ]; Wheat v. Barrett, 210 Cal. 193 [ 290 Pac. 1033 ]; Brett v. Building Com. of Brookline, 250 Mass. 73 [ 145 N. E. 269 ].)