Case law

Munro v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

50 Cal. 2d 863 · California Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1958

The appeals board has appealed from that judgment. The Constitution authorizes the appeals board to review decisions of the department, and the board was acting under this authority when it heard Chaney’s appeal. … As is true in Koehn v.

Marin County Board of Realtors, Inc. v. Palsson

16 Cal. 3d 920 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1976

(Barrows v. Grand Rapids Real Estate Board (1974) 51 Mich.App. 75 [ 214 N.W.2d 532, 536 ].) … (United States v. Insurance Board of Cleveland (N.D.Ohio 1956) 144 F.Supp. 684, 691 .)

Lerner v. Los Angeles City Board of Education

59 Cal. 2d 382 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1963

(Wittman v. Board of Police Comrs. (1912) 19 Cal.App. 229, 232 [ 125 P. 265 ].) … Co. v. Rolph (1920) 184 Cal. 557, 562 [ 194 P. 1005 ] ; Palmer v. Fox, supra; Brown v. Superior Court (1925) 70 Cal.App. 732, 737 [ 234 P. 409 ]), Lerner might well believe restoration an adequate remedy.

Department of Corrections v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

23 Cal. 3d 197 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1979

In Dept. of Motor Vehicles v. Indus. Acc. … (See Cooper v. Bray (1978) 21 Cal.3d 841, 851 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 148 , 582 P.2d 604 ]; Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ].)

Drummey v. State Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers

13 Cal. 2d 75 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1939

We find no case directly in point, but in the well reasoned case of Praia Undertaking Co. v. State Board of Embalming, 55 R. … (Stockton & V. Railroad Co. v. Stockton, 51 Cal. 328 ; Wood v. Strother, 76 Cal. 545 [ 18 Pac. 766 , 9 Am. St. Rep. 249 ] ; Inglin v. Hoppin, 156 Cal. 483 [ 105 Pac. 582 ]; 16 Cal.

Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors

52 Cal. 3d 553 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1990

Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1028-1029 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 41 ]; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. … (Browning-Ferns Industries v. City Council (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 862 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 575 ]; Guidelines, § 15088, subd. (a).)

Kavanagh v. Board of Police Pension Fund Commissioners

134 Cal. 50 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1901

At the date last named, said Kavanagh, having served for more than twenty years as an active patrol police-officer, and having attained the age of sixty-two years, was by the board of police commissioners placed upon the … (Pennie v. Reis, 132 U. S. 471 .) The judgment appealed from should be affirmed. Gray, C., and Cooper, C., concurred. For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Tyra v. Board of Police & Fire Pension Commissioners

32 Cal. 2d 666 · California Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1948

On the authority of Larson v. Board of Police & Fire Pension Commissioners (1945), 71 Cal.App.2d 60 [ 162 P.2d 33 ] (see also Johnson v. Board of Police etc. Pen. … This position of the defendants amounted to a departmental rule of action at least until the decision in the cases of Tyra v. Board of Police etc. Commrs. and Larson v. Board of Police etc. Commrs., supra.

Dant & Russell, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors

21 Cal. 2d 534 · California Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1943

McLean & Co. v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 203 U.S. 38 [ 27 S.Ct. 1 , 51 L.Ed. 78 ]; Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 171 U.S. 345, 350 [ 18 S.Ct. 862 , 43 L.Ed. 191 ] Woodruff v. … (De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 [ 21 S.Ct. 743 , 45 L.Ed. 1041 ]; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 [ 21 S.Ct. 770 , 45 L.Ed. 1088 ]; Fourteen Diamond Rings v.

Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equalization

51 Cal. 2d 640 · California Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1959

(Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 25 Cal.2d 918, 921 [ 156 P.2d 1]; see also Richfield Oil Corp. v. Crawford, 39 Cal.2d 729, 736 [ 249 P.2d 600 ].) The same reasoning was employed in O’Kelley Eccles Co. v. … (See also Meyer v. State Board of Equalization, 42 Cal.2d 376, 382 [ 267 P.2d 257 ].)

People ex rel. Johnson v. Board of Supervisors

77 Cal. 136 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1888

To review this action of the board, this writ of certiorari was sued out, the petitioner contending that the board had no power to deduct the mortgage, because, being held by the regents of the university, it is the property … of the state (as decided in Hollister v.

Mayrhofer v. Board of Education of San Diego

89 Cal. 110 · California Supreme Court · May 18, 1891

To the same effect are the following cases: United States v. Swearingen, 11 Gill & J. 373; Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 1 Watts, 54 ; 26 Am. Dec. 33 ; Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 239 ; United States v. … Davis, 3 McLean, 484 ; United States v. Williams, 5 McLean, 133 ; Commonwealth v. Johnson, 6 Pa. St. 136; Josselyn v. Stone, 28 Miss. 753 ; People v. Herkimer, 4 Cow. 345 ; 15 Am.

Earle v. Board of Education of San Francisco

55 Cal. 489 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1880

The new section is to follow immediately § 1617 of the Political Code, which, so far as necessary to be quoted, reads thus : “ The powers of boards of trustees of school districts, and of boards'of education in cities, are

Dow Chemical Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

67 Cal. 2d 483 · California Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1967

These basic rules of procedure require the board to give res judicata effect to its final decisions. (French v. Rishell, 40 Cal.2d 477, 479-480 [ 254 P.2d 26 ] ; United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. … The collateral estoppel branch of the res judicata doctrine applies to decisions of the board. (French v. Rishell, supra, 40 Cal.2d 477, 479-480 , citing to Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807 [ 122 P.2d 892 .)

Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization

6 Cal. 2d 557 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1936

Board of Supervisors, 162 Cal. 14 [ 120 Pac. 780 ] ; Suckow v. Alderson, 182 Cal. 247, 250 [ 187 Pac. 965 ] ; Brecheen v. Riley, 187 Cal. 121 [ 200 Pac. 1042 ] ; Gregory v. Hecke, 73 Cal. … Other applications denied for the reason above mentioned are Dicktakes v. State Board of Equalization, S. F. 15529, and So. Cal. Edison Co. v. State Board of Equalization, L. A. 15506.

People ex rel. Hunt v. Board of Supervisors

28 Cal. 429 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1865

(Frank v. San Francisco, 21 Cal. 668 ; Emeric v. Gilman, 10 Cal. 404 ; San Francisco Gas Company v. Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, 11 Cal. *432 42 ; People ex rel. Plumb v. Cortland County, 24 How. … Hasbrouck v. New York, 21 Id. 322.)

State Personnel Board v. Department of Personnel Administration

36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 142 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 2005

v. … Saylor (1971) 5 Cal.3d 685, 691 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 488 P.2d 161 ]; accord, Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown [supra,] 29 Cal.3d 168, 180.)

Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of Equalization

25 Cal. 2d 918 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1945

(Shealor v. City of Lodi, 23 Cal.2d 647 [ 145 P. 2d 574 ] ; People v. Southern Pacific Co., 209 Cal. 578 [ 290 P. 25 ]; Riley v. Thompson, 193 Cal. 773 [ 227 P. *922 772 ]; Riley v. Forbes, 193 Cal. 740 [ 227 P. 768 ].) … Mitchell, 140 Cal.App. 651 [ 36 P.2d 127 ]; Godward v. Board of Trustees, 94 Cal.App. 160 [ 270 P. 725 ].)

American Civil Liberties Union v. Board of Education

55 Cal. 2d 167 · California Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1961

Justice Rutledge in Thomas v. … C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 516 [ 59 S.Ct. 954 , 83 L.Ed. 1423 ]; Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 , 161 et seq. [ 60 S.Ct. 146 , 84 L.Ed. 155 ]; Thornhill v.

Stafford v. Los Angeles County Employees' Retirement Board

42 Cal. 2d 795 · California Supreme Court · May 11, 1954

(See Board of Supervisors v. Simpson (1951), 36 Cal.2d 671, 673 [ 227 P.2d 14 ]; Rose v. State of California (1942), 19 Cal.2d *799 713, 723-724 [ 123 P.2d 505 ]; Whittemore v. … Larson v. Board of Police etc. Commrs. (1945), 71 Cal.App.2d 60, 62 [ 162 P.2d 33 ] ; Johnson v. Board of Police etc. Pension Commrs. (1946), 74 Cal.App.2d 919, 921 [ 170 P.2d 48 ] ; and Holt v. Board of Police etc.