Case law

Holmes Investment Co. v. Board of Supervisors

1 Cal. 2d 482 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1934

Petitioner is a taxpayer and asserts that respondent board is now, by its proposed tax levy for the year 1934-1935, about to exceed the allowable sum by $1,866,696. … Justice Plummer, in the case of Crow v. Board of Supervisors, 135 Cal.

Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

53 Cal. 3d 245 · California Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1991

(Board of Supervisors v. Lonergan, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pp. 868-869.) … (See Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal. 3d at p. 349 ; Brosnahan v. Brown, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 251 ; Fair Political Practices Com. v.

Granco Steel, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

68 Cal. 2d 191 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1968

Graneo’s petition for reconsideration was denied by the Board. … Supply Co. v. National Auto. & Cas. Ins. Co., supra, 189 Cal.App.2d 443, 453-455 ; Guipre v. Kurt Hitke & Co., supra, 109 Cal.App.2d 7, 17 ; Preferred Risk Fire Ins. Co. v.

In Re Marriage of Brown and Yana

38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 610 · California Supreme Court · Feb 2, 2006

(Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 , 27 P.3d 289 ] (Montenegro).) … (LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1078 ; see also id. at p. 1096; Ragghanti v.

Wallace Berrie & Co. v. State Board of Equalization

40 Cal. 3d 60 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1985

(Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, 411 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 183 , 546 P.2d 687 ].) … The Board relies on Revenue and Taxation Code section 13103 and American Alliance Ins. Co. v.

Franklin Life Insurance v. State Board of Equalization

63 Cal. 2d 222 · California Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1965

of Equalization (hereinafter called the Board). … (See County of Los Angeles v. Jessup (1938) 11 Cal.2d 273, 279 [ 78 P.2d 1131 ] ; City of Los Angeles v. Lewis (1917) 175 Cal. 777, 783 [ 167 P. 390 ].)

Cosner v. Board of Supervisors of Colusa County

58 Cal. 274 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1881

(Berryman v. Perkins, 55 Cal. 483 .) … So where a Board of Supervisors were authorized to contract for a map, it was held that it was intended by the Legislature to refer the propriety of purchasing the map to the local authorities. (Bowers v.

Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

34 Cal. 3d 159 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1983

It has been said that “The substantial evidence test is not a vehicle for [a court] to superimpose its judgment upon that of the Board.” (Mendoza v. Workers’ Comp. … Co. v. Industrial Acc.

Baranowski v. State Bar

24 Cal. 3d 153 · California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1979

This position rests upon the fact that the board has the opportunity to observe first-hand the demeanor of the witnesses and can better evaluate the veracity of their testimony. (Himmel v. … Brown and his failure to explain to Mrs. Brown other less dangerous and more profitable ways of investing her money, clearly support the findings of the Disciplinary Board.

Sunset Amusement Co. v. Board of Police Commissioners

7 Cal. 3d 64 · California Supreme Court · May 10, 1972

(Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind, 67 Cal.2d 536, 548 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 21 , 432 P.2d 717 ]; see *74 O'Hagen v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 19 Cal.App.3d 151, 160-161 [96. … (Italics added; accord, O'Hagen v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, supra.)

Security-First National Bank v. Franchise Tax Board

55 Cal. 2d 407 · California Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1961

Co. v. State Board of Equalisation, 239 U.S. 441, 445 [ 36 S.Ct. 141 , 60 L.Ed. 372 ].) ... … (Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court, supra, 36 Cal.2d 538, 551 .)

Standard Rectifier Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

65 Cal. 2d 287 · California Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1966

Meanwhile, on August 19, 1963, the employee filed with the Industrial Accident Commission (predecessor of respondent board) her first application for benefits. … Corp. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 60, 67 [ 288 P.2d 300 ] ; Pacific Indem. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Wimmer) (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 490, 494 [ 193 P.2d 117 ] ; American Motorists Ins. Co. v.

Buswell v. Board of Supervisors of Alameda County

116 Cal. 351 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1897

board of equalization upon July 25th ? … (Payne v. San Francisco, 3 Cal. 122 ; Hart v. Plum, 14 Cal. 149 ; People v. Canal Co., 48 Cal. 143 ; State v. Western Union Tel. Co., 4 Nev. 338 ; State v. Northern Belle Min. Co., 15 Nev. 386 .)

John Deere Plow Co. v. Franchise Tax Board

38 Cal. 2d 214 · California Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1951

Co. v. … Co. v.

Central Pacific Railroad v. State Board of Equalization

60 Cal. 35 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1882

.: In addition to the points made in San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad Company v. The State Board of Equalization, the petitioner makes the following: 1. … (Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 123 .) In The Insurance Company v.

Zenith National Insurance v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

66 Cal. 2d 944 · California Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1967

During the course of this trip applicant sustained the injuries for which the board awarded compensation. … Exchange v. Industrial Acc. Com. *950 (1942) 21 Cal.2d 461, 463 [ 132 P.2d 815 ] ; Trussless Roof Co. v. Industrial Acc.

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. State Board of Equalization

32 Cal. 3d 649 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1982

The Board relies heavily on California Physicians ’ Service v. Garrison (1946) supra, 28 Cal.2d 790 , to support its position. … Co. v. State Board of Equal. (1959) supra, 169 Cal.App.2d at p. 168 .) The net premium under standard group policies is the expected level of claims payments.

City of Torrance v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

32 Cal. 3d 371 · California Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1982

The Board granted State Fund’s motion and denied the City’s subsequent petition for reconsideration. The City now seeks review of the Board’s decision. II. … Assn. v. Blaisdell, supra, 290 U.S. at p. 431 [ 78 L.Ed. at p. 425 ], citing Sturges v.

Antonelle v. Board of New City Hall Commissioners

92 Cal. 228 · California Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1891

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court, in a proceeding in mandamus, commanding the board of new city hall commissioners to allow a certain demand of respondents payable out of the new city hall fund.

Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

7 Cal. 4th 561 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1994

After suspension of their licenses by the Department, petitioners appealed to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (the Board). … (Reyes v. Municipal Court, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 777 ; see also People v.