Case law

Brooks v. City of Gilroy

219 Cal. 766 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1934

It is true that in the resolution of the board and in other documents, he is referred to as “city engineer”, but such language is not always controlling. … The same question was before the court in the case of Kennedy v.

City of Bakersfield v. Miller

64 Cal. 2d 93 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1966

Board of Building & Safety Comrs. (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 514, 521 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 564 ]; Perepletchikoff v. City of Los Angeles (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 697, 701 [ 345 P.2d 261 ].) … (Yen Eng v. Board of Building & Safety Comrs. (1960) supra, 184 Cal.App.2d 514 ; Takata v. City of Los Angeles (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 154 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 516 ] ; People v.

People v. C.H.

53 Cal. 4th 94 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2011

Section 1766 sets forth the authority of the Juvenile Parole Board over wards committed to the DJF. (§ 1766, subd. (b) [former subd. (a)].) … (Bonnell v. Medical Board (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1255, 1264 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 82 P.3d 740 ].) D.

Daves v. Southern Pacific Co.

98 Cal. 19 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1893

(Collier v. Steinhart, 51 Cal. 116 .)” In Congrave v. S. P. P. R. … The same doctrine was announced in Brown v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 72 Cal. 523 ; and Fagundes v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 79 Cal. 97 .”

Scott v. Industrial Accident Commission

9 Cal. 2d 315 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1937

The evidence showed that the foot-board was worn and a bolt exposed for a distance of four or five inches, so that it might be said to have been in a defective and unsafe condition within the meaning of the Boiler Inspection … Cannon, 296 Fed. 302 ; Shauberger v. Erie R. Co., 25 Fed. (2d) 297; Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. Industrial Board, 277 Ill. 512 [ 115 N. E. 647 ].

Hale v. McGettigan

114 Cal. 112 · California Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1896

In Christy v. … Similar principles were announced in People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 433 , Rood v. McCargar, 49 Cal. 117 , and Mills v. Sargent, 36 Cal. 379 . See, also, Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379 ; Miller v. Kister, 68 Cal. 142 .

Cox v. McLaughlin

63 Cal. 196 · California Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1883

This question has recently been before us in two cases, one of which is Loup v. C. S. R. R. Co. 63 Cal. 97 , and the other Holmes v. … the best constructed railroad in the State, and was to be in full compliance with the contract then existing between McLaughlin and The Western Pacific Railroad Company, and in full compliance with the requirements of the board

Brokaw v. Black-Foxe Military Institute

37 Cal. 2d 274 · California Supreme Court · May 25, 1951

Co. v. … (Brown v. Regan, 10 Cal.2d 519 [ 75 P.2d 1063 ].) Moreover, throughout the trial the mother was treated as a plaintiff without regard to which action was involved. The actions were tried as one action.

Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp.

62 Cal. 2d 239 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1965

Thus, in an action to compel the declaration of dividends, a judgment against the corporation alone is effective, for the members of the board of directors are not indispensable parties. (Doherty v. … Augustine, 172 Cal. 285, 288 [ 156 P. 479 ]; Morris v. Harris, 127 Cal.App.2d 476, 478 [ 274 P.2d 22 ] ; Davis v.

Rapp v. Gibson

51 Cal. 2d 467 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1959

Plaintiff, the auditor of Kern County, brought this action for declaratory relief against all of the incumbent elective officers of that county to determine the effective date of a salary ordinance adopted by the Board of … (United States v. Sanders, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 21 , 21 C.M.R. 147, 148 .)

Miles v. Ryan

172 Cal. 205 · California Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1916

This was expressly decided in Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110 , [ 23 Am. St. Rep. 451 , 26 P. 646 ]. … Bank v. Perris Irr. Dist., 107 Cal. 55 , [ 40 P. 45 ]; Newport Wharf L. Co. v. Drew, 125 Cal. 585 , [ 58 P. 187 ]; Long Beach School Dist. v. Lutge, 129 Cal. 409 , [ 62 P. 36 ].)

Shaeffer v. State Bar

26 Cal. 2d 739 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1945

, ordered by this court on April 30, 1934 (Shaeffer v. … The board having found against petitioner on nine counts recommended suspension for a period of two years.

Cassista v. Community Foods, Inc.

5 Cal. 4th 1050 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1993

Board, of Civil Service Comrs., supra, 5 Cal.App.4th 1011 , the department’s weight standards were bona fide occupational qualifications. (McMillen v. … And the recent decision of the California Court of Appeal in Hegwer v. Board of Civil Service Comrs., supra, 5 Cal.App.4th 1011, is in accord.

Landeros v. Flood

17 Cal. 3d 399 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1976

(Brown v. Colm (1974) 11 Cal.3d 639, 642-643 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 522 P.2d 688 ]; Bardessono v. Michels (1970) 3 Cal.3d 780, 788 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 760 , 478 P.2d 480 , 45 A.L.R.3d 717 ]; Lawless v. … (Sinz v. Owens (1949) 33 Cal.2d 749, 753 [ 205 P.2d 3 , 8 A.L.R.2d 757 ]; accord, Brown v. Colm (1974) supra, 11 Cal.3d 639, 643 ; Cobbs v.

Ferroni v. Pacific Finance Corp.

21 Cal. 2d 773 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1943

(See Guillot v. Hagman, supra.) … (Smith v. Schuttpelz, 1 Cal.2d 158 [33 P.2d 836]; Bergtholdt v. Porter Bros. Co., 114 Cal. 681 [ 46 P. 733 ]; Brown v. Spencer, 163 Cal. 589 [ 126 P. 493 ]; MacDonnell v.

Archer v. Civil Service Commission

1 Cal. 2d 357 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1934

Petitioner, in February, 1927, was employed by the city and county of San Francisco in the bureau of engineering of the board of public works, in the capacity of engineering draftsman. … The case of Cutting v. McKinley, 130 Cal.

Davis v. Spring Valley Water Works

57 Cal. 543 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

That these fences were built of posts and two boards of irregular widths, placed horizontally from post to post. … Rollins et al. 30 id. 408 ; Brumagim v Bradshaw, 39 id. 24; Walsh v. Hill, 41 id. 582.)

In Re Estate of Shirley

180 Cal. 400 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1919

In support of this construction of the clause she relies on the decisions of this court in Estate of Marti, 132 Cal. 666 , [ 61 Pac. 964 , 64 Pac. 1071 ]; Kauffman v. … In Board v. Culp, 151 Pa. 470 , [ 25 Atl. 118 ], quoted with approval in Estate of Tooley, 170 Cal. 166 , [Ann.

Ames v. City of San Diego

101 Cal. 390 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1894

(Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 530 ; San Francisco v. Ganavan, 42 Cal. 541 ; Townsend v. Greely, 5 Wall. 326 .) … (Hoadley v. San Francisco, 50 Cal. 265 ; People v. Pope, 53 Cal. 437 ; County of Yolo v. Barney, 79 Cal. 375 ; Board of Education v. Martin, 92 Cal. 209 .)

People v. Zamora

28 Cal. 3d 88 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1980

(Brown v. Municipal Court (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 357, 363 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 216 ]; see Dell M. v. … In People v. Hitch, supra, 12 Cal.3d 641 , failure of the police to preserve a breath ampoule led not to dismissal of the charges, but rendered the breath alcohol test inadmissible. In Brown v.