Case law

Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. California Coastal Farms, Inc.

31 Cal. 3d 469 · California Supreme Court · May 27, 1982

(See, e.g., NLRB v. … Their contention is based on the principle that, in an unfair labor practice case, a charging party is not a party litigant when the board initiates a suit for injunctive relief. (Squillacote v.

Security Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Board of Supervisors

4 Cal. Unrep. 222 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1893

In Farmers & Merchants’ Bank v. Board of Equalization, 97 Cal. 318 , 32 Pac. 312 , most of the ques *224 tions involved in this appeal were determined adversely to the respondent. … The additional point now presented, that the legislature could not confer upon the state hoard of equalization authority to extend the time within which the county board of equalization could act, must also, under the principles

People ex rel. Tallant v. Board of Supervisors

12 Cal. 300 · California Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1859

The principles of this case have already been settled in the case of The People v. Bond, Assessor. … We have already held that the Board of Supervisors had no control over the Treasurer in respect to this matter.

Navistar International Transportation Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

8 Cal. 4th 868 · California Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1994

The Board assessed a deficiency. In November 1986, after the Board’s denial of Navistar’s “Petition for Redetermination,” Navistar paid the Board the assessed deficiency. … In Capitol Records, Inc. v.

Screen Extras Guild, Inc. v. Superior Court

51 Cal. 3d 1017 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1990

VI, cl. 2; Brown v. Hotel Employees (1984) 468 U.S. 491, 501 [ 82 L.Ed.2d 373, 383 , 104 S.Ct. 3179 ], quoting Hines v. … VI, cl. 2; Brown v. Hotel Employees, supra, 468 U.S. at p. 501 [ 82 L.Ed.2d at p. 383 ].)

Provident Mutual Building-Loan Ass'n v. Davis

143 Cal. 253 · California Supreme Court · May 12, 1904

Brown, who had subsequently become the owner of the property, a party defendant. Brown filed an answer and counterclaim; the Davises made default. … It has nothing to do with the duties or powers of the board of commissioners, and is entirely foreign to the title of the act.

Prudential Insurance of America v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

22 Cal. 3d 776 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1978

Appeals Bd., supra, at p. 197; Los Angeles v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1926) 76 Cal.App. 639 [ 245 P. 796 ]; Glass Containers, Inc. v. Ind. Acc. … It was held in Rowland v. Workers’ Comp.

People Ex Rel. State Board of Harbor Commissioners v. Mullender

132 Cal. 217 · California Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1901

In People v. … (State v. Squires, 26 Iowa, 340, 345 .)

International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. Public Employment Relations Board

51 Cal. 4th 259 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 2011

In January 2004, Local 188 filed an unfair labor practice charge with PERB, alleging that the city had violated California’s Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov. … (Fibreboard Corp. v.

Bourhis v. Lord

56 Cal. 4th 320 · California Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2013

If the statutory requirements are met, the Franchise Tax Board issues a “certificate of revivor.” (§ 23305.) … (Reed v. Norman (1957) 48 Cal.2d 338, 343 [ 309 P.2d 809 ].) Thus, the notices of appeal were invalid when filed. However, Brown Eyed Girl later received a certificate of revivor.

Stumpf v. Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County

131 Cal. 364 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1901

Smith, a member of the board, examined the names and was satisfied with them. Mr. … Dist., 92 Cal. 296, 333 , 335 1 ; citing Blair v. Hamilton, 32 Cal. 52 ; Whitney v. Board of Delegates, 14 Cal. 479 ; Lowe v. Alexander, 15 Cal. 300 .)

San Francisco & North Pacific Railroad v. State Board of Equalization

60 Cal. 12 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1882

(Wells, Fargo & Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 194 .) … The Act does not attempt to confer the power of levying a tax upon the State Board. In Houghton v.

Southern California Jockey Club, Inc. v. California Horse Racing Board

36 Cal. 2d 167 · California Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1950

Code, § 2; Sandstrom v. California Horse Racing Board, supra.) … (Sandstrom v. California Horse Racing Board, supra.)

O'Dea v. Hollywood Cemetery Assoc.

154 Cal. 53 · California Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1908

Brown, N. M. … (Kohler v. Agassez, 99 Cal. 9 , [ 33 Pac. 741 ]; Union Savings Bank v. Dunlap, 135 Cal. 628 , [ 67 Pac. 1084 ]; Union Savings Bank v.

San Clemente Ranch, Ltd. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

29 Cal. 3d 874 · California Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1981

In National Labor Relations Board v. … Let a decree issue (1) setting aside and remanding to the Board the make-whole portion of the order pursuant to J.R. Norton Co. v.

Atherton v. Board of Supervisors of San Mateo Couty

48 Cal. 157 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

It is now claimed by th'e petitioner, that, in making this order the Board exceeded its jurisdiction, and that its proceedings in that behalf should be annulled. … This language, considered by itself, wofild import that the right of the electors to petition the Board, and the corresponding duty of the Board to direct an election upon the presentation of a proper petition, are not exhausted

San Mateo City School District v. Public Employment Relations Board

33 Cal. 3d 850 · California Supreme Court · May 19, 1983

Code, § 13080 et seq.; see, Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 487 , 624 P.2d 1215 ].) … (Grasko v. Los Angeles City Board of Education (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 290 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 334 ].) In San Juan Teachers Association v. San Juan Unified Sch.

Lindell Co. v. Board of Permit Appeals of San Francisco

23 Cal. 2d 303 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1943

(Brougher *311 v. Board of Public Works, 107 Cal.App. 15, 24 [ 290 P. 140 ].) … (Rubin *323 v. Board of Directors of the City of Pasadena, 16 Cal.2d 119, 125 [ 104 P.2d 1041 ]; Regan v. Council of City of San Mateo, 42 Cal.App.2d 801, 806 [ 110 P.2d 95 ]; Otis v.

Barrell v. Lake View Land Co.

122 Cal. 129 · California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1898

Brown, President. “W. A. Main, Secretary.” *131 The defendant denied the execution of the note, and alleged that the signatures thereto were without authority from the hoard of directors of the corporation. … There is no presumption that it was a special meeting (Granger v. Original Empire etc. Co., 59 Cal. 678 ; Stockton etc. Works v. Houser, 109 Cal. 9 .)

Larue Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. Board of Port Commissioners

9 Cal. 2d 397 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1937

of public works and petitioner, are the same in every material respect as those presented in the ease of Board of Port Commrs. v. … The reasons for the decision set out in Board of Port Commrs v. Williams, supra, this day decided, constitute the grounds of our decision in the instant proceeding. The writ is accordingly discharged.