Case law

Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

29 Cal. 3d 101 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1981

In Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. … (Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., supra, 20 Cal.3d 55, 67 ; Wilkinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 491, 501 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 696 , 564 P.2d 848 ]; Rivera v.

Union Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization

60 Cal. 2d 441 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1963

Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 411 [294 P.2d 181]; Flying Tiger Line, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 85 [ 320 P.2d 552 ].) … State Board of Equalization, 25 Cal.2d 918, 921 [ 156 P.2d 1 ].)” (Select Base Materials, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 647 [ 335 P.2d 672 ]; see also Anders v .

International Business Machines v. State Board of Equalization

26 Cal. 3d 923 · California Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1980

(Rivera v. City of Fresno (1971) 6 Cal.3d 132, 140 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 490 P.2d 793 ]; Wilkinson v. Workers’ Comp. … (City of Los Angeles v. Rancho Homes, Inc. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 764, 771 [ 256 P.2d 305 ]; Bermite Powder Company v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1952) 38 Cal.2d 700, 704 [ 242 P.2d 9 ]; Coca-Cola Co. v.

Board of Harbor Commissioners v. Excelsior Redwood Co.

88 Cal. 491 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1891

In United States v. … The legislature had not authority to confer upon the officer or board the power of declaring what acts should constitute a misdemeanor.”

City of Huntington Beach v. Board of Administration

4 Cal. 4th 462 · California Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1992

(McAlpine v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1, 7 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 32 ].) The Board relies on Ames v. … (See, e.g., Neeley v. Board of Retirement, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d at p. 820 .)

Northwestern Pacific Railroad v. State Board of Equalization

21 Cal. 2d 524 · California Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1943

The board levied a tax measured by the gross receipts from that sale. … The case of Southern California Edison Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 220 Cal. 420 [ 31 P.2d 384 ], relied on by plaintiff, is distinguishable from the present case.

State Personnel Board v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

39 Cal. 3d 422 · California Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1985

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 197 .) … (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 185.)

Decorative Carpets, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

58 Cal. 2d 252 · California Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1962

In Mallon v. … In Lindheimer v.

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.

Fish v. the State Bar

214 Cal. 215 · California Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1931

(See Aydelotte v. The State Bar, 209 Cal. 737 [ 290 Pac. 41 ].) Petitioner also challenges the qualifications of the Board of Governors to pass upon his case. … Co. v. Curd, 179 Cal. 489 [2 A. L. R. 1202, 177 Pac. 469 ].) The very point here involved has been decided by the District Court of Appeal in reference to the board of medical examiners. (See Dyment v.

Ruberoid Co. v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

59 Cal. 2d 73 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1963

To the same effect: Matson Terminals, Inc. v. California Emp. Com. (1944), supra, 24 Cal.2d 695 ; McKinley v. California Emp. etc. … Thus in Mark Hopkins, Inc. v. California Emp.

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.

Board of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Commission

3 Cal. 4th 903 · California Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1992

(Plyler v. … Board of Trustees (1890) 85 Cal. 408, 415-416 [ 24 P. 868 ]), and the doctrine of stare decisis does not require us to defer to it (Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v.

Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Board of Equalization

15 Cal. 4th 866 · California Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1997

(Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 240 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ]; County of Fresno v. … (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 [school facilities fees]; Bixel Associates v.

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.)

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 .)

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.)

Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors

8 Cal. 4th 765 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1994

v. … (Geiger v. Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal.2d 832, 836 [ 313 P.2d 545 ].)

Kimball v. Board of Supervisors of Alameda County

46 Cal. 19 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

In Lincoln v. … It has been repeatedly decided that Boards of Supervisors have jurisdiction over roads, ferries, and bridges within their *24 respective counties. (Waugh v. Chauncey, 13 Cal. 11 ; People v.

Williams v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County

58 Cal. 237 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881