Case law

Wiltsie v. Board of Supervisors

65 Cal. 2d 314 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1966

(Griffin v. Board of Supervisors (1960) 60 Cal.2d 751 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 616 , 388 P.2d 888 ].) … (Miller v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 63 Cal.2d 343, 349 .)

Steele v. Board of Supervisors

62 Cal. 6 · California Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1882

The Court : The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case is sustained on the authority of Reed v. Allison, 10 P. C. L. J. 239, and cases cited therein. Appeal dismissed.

Garretson v. Board of Supervisors

61 Cal. 54 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1882

It is said by petitioner that no “ Rules of Notice ” were prescribed by the County Board as required by Section 9, Article xiii. of the Constitution. … The Code does not require the testimony of witnesses examined before the Board of Supervisors to be reduced to writing.

Leet v. Board of Supervisors

5 Cal. Unrep. 573 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1897

The appellants constitute the board of supervisors in and for the county of Kern, state of California. … As was said in San Diego School Dist. of San Diego Co. v.

Polk v. Board of Education

7 Cal. Unrep. 170 · California Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1903

This action is, in all respects but one, similar to the action of Hancock v. … For the reasons here given, as well as those in the case of Hancock v. Board of Education, the judgment is affirmed. We concur: Angellotti, J.; Van Dyke, J.

Menzies v. Board of Equalization

62 Cal. 179 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1882

Baker v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

52 Cal. 4th 434 · California Supreme Court · Aug 11, 2011

Name of Opinion Baker v. … Brown and David M. Goi for State Compensation Insurance Fund as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner. Law Offices of Saul Allweiss and Michael A.

Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 216 · California Supreme Court · Aug 17, 2006

The Board also points to two judicial decisions it contends support its interpretation of gross receipts. (City of Los Angeles v. … (Citicorp North America, Inc. v.

Valdez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

57 Cal. 4th 1231 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 2013

(Brodie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1331.) Here, the Board’s interpretation of section 4616.6 was clearly erroneous. … Name of Opinion Valdez v.

Handler v. Board of Supervisors

39 Cal. 2d 282 · California Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1952

V, § 2[f].) (See Kennedy v. Ross, supra, 28 Cal.2d 569 .) … Any appropriation made by said Board of Supervisors shall be upon the recommendation of the County Manager.” (Art. V, §3.)

Brodie v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 644 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 2007

The Board granted reconsideration but thereafter affirmed the award. (Strong v. City & County of San Francisco (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1460 (en banc).) … The WCJ awarded $9,296.25 in permanent disability benefits based on the difference, 15 percent, and the Board denied reconsideration. In Brodie v. Workers’ Comp.

Drescher v. Board of Supervisors

191 Cal. 234 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1923

This is an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent Board of Supervisors to appoint a member of the Honcut-Yuba Irrigation District, upon the ground that there is a vacancy in the board of that district … The writ should not be granted until it has been established by judicial process that there is a vacancy to be filled. ( Kelly v. Edwards, 69 Cal. 460 [ 11 P. 1 ].) The petition is denied.

Hiatt v. Board of Trustees

65 Cal. 481 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1884

Ames v. Board of Supervisors

62 Cal. 2d 320 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1965

People v. City of Garden Grove, 165 Cal.App.2d 794, 797 [ 332 P.2d 841 ]), and is one of statutory construction. … as urged by the board.

Blaine v. Board of Supervisors

1 Cal. 2d 486 · California Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1934

To this general effect see Murdoch v. Strange, 99 Md. 89 [ 57 Atl. 628, 629 , 3 Ann. Cas. 66]; *489 Catlett v. Knoxville etc. Ry. Co., 120 Tenn. 699 [ 113 S. W. 559 , 562, 563]; State v. … A case which seems to be squarely in point is Madden v. Board of Election Commrs., 251 Mass. 95 [ 146 N. E. 280, 281 ].

Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

10 Cal. 3d 222 · California Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1973

(Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., supra, 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 ); “a construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided.” (Watkins v. … . *231 (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., supra, 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 ; Stafford v. L. A. etc. Retirement Board (1954) 42 Cal.2d 795, 799 [ 270 P.2d 12 ].)

Morrison v. State Board of Education

1 Cal. 3d 214 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1969

(Yakov, v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 68 Cal.2d 67, 73, fn. 6 .) 11 Board of Education v. Swan (1953) 41 Cal.2d 546 [ 261 P.2d 261 ], and Board of Trustees v. … See Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 68 Cal.2d 67, 73-74 ; Kemp v. Board of Medical Supervisors (1917) 46 App. D.C. 173, 182 .

Davisson v. Board of Supervisors

70 Cal. 612 · California Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1886

Under no possible view of the statute was the board of supervisors obliged to appoint the person petitioned for road overseer. … Nor under a true reading of the statute was the board obliged to appoint any one, although requested to do so by a majority of the tax-payers of the district.

Garza v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

3 Cal. 3d 312 · California Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1970

Moreover, although the board is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 33 Cal.2d 89, 93 [ 199 P.2d 302 ]; Pacific Freight Lines v. Industrial Acc. … As a general rule, the board “must accept as true the intended mean *318 ing of [evidence] both uncontradicted and unimpeached.” (LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., supra, 1 Cal.3d 627, 639 ; McAllister v.

Carroll v. California Horse Racing Board

16 Cal. 2d 164 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1940

App. (2d) 14 [ 45 Pac. (2d) 430 ] ; Martin v. Board of Supervisors, 135 Cal. App. 96 [ 26 Pac. (2d) 843 , 99 A. L. R. 321].) … It is true that the opinion in State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.