Case law

Samson Market Co. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

71 Cal. 2d 1215 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1969

'We review a decision of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (board) which affirmed a decision of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (department) revoking the retail off-sale general liquor license of Samson … The licensee appealed to the board which affirmed the department’s decision. We thereafter issued a writ of review.

County of San Bernardino v. State Board of Equalization

172 Cal. 76 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1916

In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. … For example, in San Diego & Arizona Railway Co. v. State Board of Equalisation, 165 Cal. 561 , [ 132 Pac. 1044 ], the use and not merely the kind of property governed our conclusion that it was “operative.”

Volcano Cañon Road Co. v. Board of Supervisors

88 Cal. 634 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1891

The case is not materially different from that of Stony Hill Turnpike Road Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Placer County, ante, p. 632. … Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 64 Cal. 69 .) It is true that the right to collect tolls on a toll-road is a franchise, and that tolls can only be collected after the board of supervisors has fixed the rates.

Weaverville & Minersville Wagon Road Co. v. Board of Supervisors

64 Cal. 69 · California Supreme Court · Aug 6, 1883

upon said board in behalf of W. 8. … of supervisors, nor in a proceeding to determine whether a mandate should issue to compel the performance by said board of a duty imposed upon it by law.

George Arakelian Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

40 Cal. 3d 654 · California Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1985

(Arakelian) seeks review of a decision of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB or board) which, on remand by the Court of Appeal following our decision in J. R. Norton Co. v. … (Butte View Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 961, 971 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 476 ]; see also Rivcom Corp. v.

Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

40 Cal. 3d 345 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1985

Co. v. Industrial Acc. … Co. v. Ind. Acc.

Carson Estate Co. v. State Board of Equalization

6 Cal. 2d 779 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1936

In the case of Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, S. F. … Upon the authority of Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, supra, and for the reasons therein announced, the writ heretofore issued, is discharged and the proceeding dismissed.

Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

214 Cal. 288 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1931

Co. v. Los Angeles, 180 Cal. 18 [ 179 Pac. 393 ].) … (San Bernardino v. State Board of Equalization, 172 Cal. 76 [ 155 Pac. 458 ].) Here we have a gross receipts tax on operative property. As to such property there is no occasion for its valuation or assessment as such.

Friedman v. Southern California T. Co.

179 Cal. 266 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1918

It was found that plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the possession of tract 1; that Federman did not, at the time he sold tract 2 to Brown, represent to said Brown that" the board fence marked the boundary line between … (Sneed v. Osborn, 25 Cal. 619 ; Young v. Blakeman, 153 Cal. 477, 483 , [ 95 Pac. 888 ]; Price v. De Reyes, 161 Cal. 484 , [ 119 Pac. 893 ]; Grants Pass etc. Co. v. Brown, 168 Cal. 456 , [ 143 Pac. 754 ]; Silva v.

San Diego Transit Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

28 Cal. 3d 635 · California Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1980

This is a companion case to Webb v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., ante, page 621 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 32 , 620 P.2d 618 ]. … The decision of the board is annulled and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and Webb . *639 Bird, C.

State Water Resources Control Board v. United States

44 Cal. 3d 448 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1988

The Board’s reliance on dictum in McKinley Bros. v. … (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 431, fn. 11 ; Marks v. Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 790 , 491 P.2d 374 ].) Such claims may be brought in the courts or before the Board.

Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

29 Cal. 2d 560 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1947

said Superior Court upon, reversal of the judgment is hereby recalled and annulled, andl it is further ordered that the judgment of the Superior- Court in favor of plaintiff Richfield Oil Corporation, and against defendant Board

Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

29 Cal. 2d 560 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1947

said Superior Court upon, reversal of the judgment is hereby recalled and annulled, andl it is further ordered that the judgment of the Superior- Court in favor of plaintiff Richfield Oil Corporation, and against defendant Board

Western Lithograph Co. v. State Board of Equalization

11 Cal. 2d 777 · California Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1938

The facts therefore are similar to the facts involved in the case of Western Lithograph Co. v. State Board of Equalization, S. F.

Davis Wire Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

17 Cal. 3d 761 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1976

Industries, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization (1962) 198 Cal.App.2d 775, 787 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 171 ]; Sutter Packing Co. v. … (Coast Elevator Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 576, 587 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 818 ].) Davis, however, objects to the consideration of this regulation since it was not urged before the lower courts.

Illinois Commercial Men's Ass'n v. State Board of Equalization

34 Cal. 3d 839 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1983

The board asserts that People v. … Co. v.

General Pipe Line Co. v. State Board of Equalization

5 Cal. 2d 253 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1936

“In the instant case, the board required the respondent to report upon its pipe line, part of which is in Orange county and part in Los Angeles county, whereupon this action was commenced to determine the right of the board … Jur. 9; City of Pasadena v. Railroad Commission, 183 Cal. 526 [ 192 Pac. 25 , 10 A. L. R. 1425] ; Water Users etc. Assn. v. Railroad Commission, 188 Cal. 437 [ 205 Pac. 682 ]; Jochimsen v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.

Board of Trustees of State Library v. Kenfield

55 Cal. 488 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

Wo do not think that the transactions of the Board of Trustees are the basis of claims within the meaning of § 660, Political Code. … The chapter of the Political Code relating to the State Library, places the library under the control of the Board of Trustees, and authorizes the board “ to draw from the State treasury, at any time, all the moneys therein

March v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County

183 Cal. 756 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1920

California Motor Transport Co. v. State Board of Equalization

31 Cal. 2d 217 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1947

This court has recently reiterated that (Edison California Stores v. … (Pioneer Express Co. v. Riley, 208 Cal. 677, 687 [ 284 P. 663 ].)