Case law

Coleman v. Board of Supervisors

50 Cal. 493 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

By the Court : We are of opinion that the board did not exceed its jurisdiction in any of its proceedings set forth in the petition, and that it has regularly pursued its authority therein. Writ dismissed.

Baird v. Board of Supervisors

74 Cal. 397 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1887

of supervisors in June, 1885, and was by the board rejected. … But when he presented the certificate, in 1885, the law had been changed, and the board had ceased to have any authority in the matter.

Johnson v. Board of Trustees

2 Cal. 319 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1852

The new Hospital was at the same time chartered, and the 13th section of the act makes it the duty of the board of health of the old institution to deliver to the trustees of the new one, all property, real and personal,

Ferran v. Board of Supervisors

51 Cal. 307 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1876

It should appear distinctly whether these tracts of land and their owners are described before the Board. … Also, that the petition as filed should be published, to give the Board jurisdiction.

Smith v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

46 Cal. 4th 272 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 2009

(Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 871 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 824 , 891 P.2d 804 ].) If the language is clear and unambiguous, there is ordinarily no need for judicial construction. (Murphy v. … Fund v. Workers’ Comp.

Selkirk v. Board of Supervisors

3 Cal. 323 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1853

March v. Board of Supervisors

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

Harvey v. Board of Trustees

142 Cal. 391 · California Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1904

defendant for its own appropriate purposes, in which the trustees as individuals had no interest, and “for no other”; and the lease was executed by “the parties of the second part” not as individuals, but “as constituting the board … The language *393 used in the lease in describing the party of the second part is therefore quite appropriate; nor is it less clear than if it had been described as “the board of trustees.”

Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court

51 Cal. 4th 1006 · California Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2011

Board of Supervisors (1885) 68 Cal. 241, 242-243.) The court held that the board‟s denial of the plaintiff‟s claim was not subject to judicial review. (Id. at p. 243.) … Name of Opinion Franchise Tax Board v.

Evans v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

39 Cal. 3d 398 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1985

V. … (See, e.g., Whitman v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 417-418 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 866 ].)

Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. State Board of Equalization

1 Cal. 2d 784 · California Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1934

(Great Western Power Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 21 Cal. App. 146 [ 131 Pac. 88 ] ; District of Columbia v. Wilson, 44 App. Cas. (D. C.) 265.) … (Van, Hoosear v. Railroad Com., 189 Cal. 228, 236 [ 207 Pac. 903 ] ; Traffic Truck Sales Co. v. Justice’s Court, supra; Swim v. Superior Court, 193 Cal. 539, 544 [ 226 Pac. 2 ]; Finn v.

Davison v. Board of Examiners

1 Cal. Unrep. 446 · California Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1868

On the 10th of April, 1868, nearly two years after the company had been disbanded, the petitioner, a commanding officer, certified to the board of military auditors a claim for portions of the three hundred dollars per annum … The board of examiners refused to recognize the claim, and a peremptory mandate is sought to compel its allowance.

Gett v. Board of Supervisors

111 Cal. 366 · California Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1896

—This is an original proceeding in which the petitioner asks a writ of mandate to the supervisors of Sacramento county, commanding them to perform the duties imposed upon election commissioners and boards of supervisors,

Wright v. Board of Supervisors

190 Cal. 382 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1923

Plaintiff brought this action to restrain the board of supervisors from selling bonds of the city of Santa Bosa high school district, claiming that the election authorizing such bonds was illegally conducted and that the

Greene v. Board of Education

131 Cal. 165 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1900

The law formerly required six months’ notice of 'any proposed change in text-books, and this court held in People v. … State Board of Education, 49 Cal. 685 , that the board could not make the change without giving the notice.

Miller v. Board of Education

1 Cal. Unrep. 607 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1870

The only witnesses called by the defendant were Hill and Avery, both of whom were members of the board of education. … That afterward plaintiff was present at a meeting of the board at which this bill was mentioned as having been paid, and he then made no objection.

Flesher v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

23 Cal. 3d 322 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1979

Co. v. Industrial Acc. … The board itself in fact took this position in Harrison v. Workmen’s Comp.

Sanchez v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

36 Cal. 3d 575 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1984

Portland Cement Co. v. Cal. Unemp. Ins. Appeals Board (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 263, 272-273 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].) … Portland Cement Co. v. Cal. Unemp. Ins. Appeals Board, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d 263, 270 .)

Mercier v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

16 Cal. 3d 711 · California Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1976

Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (Burton) 126 Cal.App.2d 554 [ 272 P.2d 818 ].) … (Dow Chemical Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., supra, 61 Cal.2d 483, 495; cf. Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (Royster), supra, 40 Cal.App.3d 403, 407-408 .)

Chambers v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

69 Cal. 2d 556 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1968

(See, e.g., Alford v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 198, 204 [ 169 P.2d 641 ]; Associated Indem. Corp. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 820, 823-824 [ 163 P.2d 771 ]; Argonaut Mining Co. v. … Price v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1935) supra, 9 Cal.App.2d 213, 216 , and Union Lumber Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1951) 16 Cal. Comp. Cases 255 .)