Case law

Martinez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

15 Cal. 3d 982 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1976

It is well established that the factual determinations of the board must be upheld if its findings are supported by substantial evidence in the light of the entire record. (Lab. Code, § 5952, subd. (d); LeVesque v. … Similarly, in Johnson v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.

Bermite Powder Co. v. Franchise Tax Board

38 Cal. 2d 700 · California Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1952

The Franchise Tax Board, which has succeeded to the duties of the commissioner, now concedes that the ground assigned by him as justifying the denial of interest is untenable. … (Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 25 Cal.2d 918, 923 [ 156 P.2d 1 ] ; Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 24 Cal.2d 40, 48 [ 147 P.2d 577 ] ; Union League Club v. Johnson, 18 Cal. 2d 275, 279 [ 115 P.2d 425 ].)

Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry

7 Cal. 4th 1215 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1994

(Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 195 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 553 P.2d 537 ].) … Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Dist. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 155, 174 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 147 ]; Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1023 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 325 ].)

Colberg v. Board of Equalization

199 Cal. 51 · California Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1926

The petitioners, who are operators as defined by that act, refused to pay the license tax for the same reasons advanced by the plaintiff and respondent in the case of Bacon Service Corp. v.

Auerbach v. Assessment Appeals Board No. 1

45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 774 · California Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2006

(See Pacific Southwest Realty Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 1 Cal.4th 155 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 536 , 820 P.2d 1046 ] (Pacific Southwest).) … Northern Trust, as trustee for the grandchildren, contested this allocation before the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board No. 1 (Board).

Attorney General v. State Board of Judges

38 Cal. 291 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1869

The decision of this question, we shall assume, is desirable and important, not only to the State, but also to the State Board of Judges and the claimants; for the claimants would not desire to receive, nor the Board of Judges … The Board of Judges had no jurisdiction to allow a premium for a *299 half of a plantation, and, what is a matter of much greater moment, they have no jurisdiction to subdivide a plantation, and denominate each subdivision

Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance

31 Cal. 3d 124 · California Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1982

(Gore v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 184, 196 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 881 ]; Cooper v. Board of Medical Examiners (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 931, 941 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 563 ]; both quoting Van Meter v. … Board of Medical Quality Assurance, supra, 110 Cal.App.3d 184, 195 ; Cooper v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d 931, 941 .)

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board

16 Cal. 4th 761 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1997

We denied the Rent Board’s petition for review. The Rent Board complied with the superior court’s mandate. … (Agins v.

Central Pacific Railroad v. Board of Equalization

43 Cal. 365 · California Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1872

The proceedings instituted before the Board, and to review which is the purpose of the present application, were proceedings commenced there by *367 the railroad company, by .its petition filed, praying the Board to reduce … Act, Sec. 456), and only embraces cases in which “an inferior tribunal, Board, or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, Board, or officer, and there is no appeal, nor, in

Board of Commissioners (No. 2) v. Younger

29 Cal. 147 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1865

Debt of San José in person, and not by their attorney of record, to the effect that the matters in controversy had been settled, and that the action might be dismissed, and also a receipt, signed by the Treasurer of the Board … reforming a deed of certain land held by the plaintiffs, in their capacity of trustees, to the defendant, on the ground of fraud, under an agreement with one Gish (who claimed that under the rules and regulations of the Board

Board of Dental Examiners v. Jameson

23 Cal. 2d 689 · California Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1944

The Board of Dental Examiners brought an action in the Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County to enjoin the defendant from engaging in acts alleged to constitute the practice of dentistry. … (Food & Grocery Bureau *691 v. Garfield, 18 Cal.2d 174 [ 114 P.2d 579 ].)

Napa Valley Railroad v. Board of Supervisors

30 Cal. 435 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1866

(Pattison v. The Board of Supervisors of Yuba County, 13 Cal. 198 .) … (Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 343; People v. Alameda County, 26 Cal. 642 .)

Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548 · California Supreme Court · May 14, 2001

*513 Opinion BROWN, J. States have long struggled to devise an equitable and constitutional method for taxing corporations that do business in multiple states and countries. … County of Sacramento (1982) 31 Cal.3d 676, 680 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 646 P.2d 191 ], quoting Board of Port Commrs. v. Williams (1937) 9 Cal.2d 381, 389 [ 70 P.2d 918 ].)

Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

21 Cal. 3d 551 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1978

National Labor Relations Board (1st Cir. 1948) 170 F.2d 306, 307 ; see A.F. of L. v. Labor Board (1940) 308 U.S. 401, 406-408 [ 84 L.Ed. 347, 350-351 , 60 S.Ct. 300 ].) … Internat'l U. v. National Labor Rel. Bd. (5th Cir. 1952) 197 F.2d 701, 703-704 ; Lincourt v. National Labor Relations Board, supra, 170 F.2d 306, 306-307 .)

Laisne v. California State Board of Optometry

19 Cal. 2d 831 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1942

Such cases as Suckow v. Alderson, 182 Cal. 247 [ 187 Pac. 965 ]; Brecheen v. Riley, 187 Cal. 121 [ 200 Pac. 1042 ]; Cuffield v. Board of Dental Examiners, 12 Cal. App. (2d) 446 [ 55 Pac. (2d) 522 ]; Fuller v. … Board of Supervisors, 162 Cal. 14 [ 120 Pac. 780 ]; Miller & Lux v. Board of Supervisors, 189 Cal.1 254 [ 208 Pac. 304 ]; Ludolph v. Board of Police Commrs., 30 Cal. App. (2d) 211 [ 86 Pac. (2d) 118 ]; Nider v.

Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners

26 Cal. 2d 716 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1945

(Rules on Appeal, rule 2(b) (2); see, also, Brown v. Superior Court, 70 Cal.App. 732 [ 234 P. 409 ] ; Colthurst v. Justice’s Court, 100 Cal.App. 146 [ 279 P. 812 ].) … In Brown v. Superior Court, supra, in proceedings for certiorari no demurrer or answer was filed and when the order to show cause was heard a minute order was made denying the writ.

Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners

21 Cal. 2d 399 · California Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1942

Dist. v. … Thus, in Whittaker v.

Cooper v. State Board of Medical Examiners

35 Cal. 2d 242 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1950

V. King Dr. Wm. L. … Code, § 2372 10 ; King v. Board of Medical Examiners (1944), supra, 65 Cal.App.2d 644, 652 ; see, also, Fuller v. Board of Medical Examiners (1936), 14 Cal.App.2d 734, 737 [ 59 P.2d 171 ].)

Martin v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

52 Cal. 2d 238 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1959

In Covert v. … (See Covert v. State Board of Equalization, supra, 29 Cal.2d 125 .)

Imperial Water Co. v. Board of Supervisors

162 Cal. 14 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1912

(People v. Supervisors, 8 Cal. 61 ; People v. Supervisors, 10 Cal. 344 ; Eldorado v. Elstner, 18 Cal. 149 ; Murray v. Board, 23 Cal. 494 ; Miller v. Board, 25 Cal. 97 ; Keys v. Marin Co., 42 Cal. 254 ; Smith v. … Strother, 68 Cal. 196 , [ 8 Pac. 852 ]; Wulzen v. Board, 101 Cal. 24 , [ 40 Am. St. Rep. 17 , 35 Pac. 353 ].)