Case law

Opinion No. (1999)

California Attorney General Reports · Mar 26, 1999

Board of Supervisors (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 612, 615-617 , the court followed the Thrifty Corp. analysis, relying upon an opinion letter and regulations of the State Board of Equalization which construed "change in ownership … Inc. v .

Opinion No. (2006)

California Attorney General Reports · Jul 11, 2006

of retirement in [ Board of Retirement v. … (See Hazelwood School District v.

Opinion No. (2005)

California Attorney General Reports · Oct 12, 2005

(See, e.g., People v. … In Zack v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Jun 4, 1999

(See Pomona Officers’ Assn. v. City of Pomona (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 578, 584-585; Board of Administration v. Wilson (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1119-1120; Oden v. … Board of Administration (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 194, 198; Claypool v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Apr 5, 1989

In Webster v. … In Schecter v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Nov 8, 1995

Chapman v. Rapsey (1940) 16 Cal.2d 636, 644), precludes a member of a county board of supervisors from serving on the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges ("Board of Governors"). … Applying these principles, we find that a county supervisor and a Board of Governors member holds "public office" (see Gov. Code, ' 24000, subd. (o); People v. Elliot (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 410, 415; People v.

Opinion No. (2002)

California Attorney General Reports · Dec 20, 2002

, the governing board of any special district whose membership is the same as the membership of the board of supervisors, or the head of any county public safety communications center may authorize the destruction of recordings … (See Curb v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057 , 1063 , 1067 ; Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973 , 977-978 ; California Teachers Assn. v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Dec 1, 1998

In making its determination, the Board uses a “pooling” formula approved by the court in City of San Joaquin v. State Board of Equalization (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 365. … (See Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6.) However, the right to privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against other important interests. (Hill v.

Opinion No. (2000)

California Attorney General Reports · Aug 8, 2000

XI , §§ 5 , 7; Weber v. City Council (1972) 9 Cal.3d 950 , 957 ; Curtis v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 7 Cal.3d 942 , 951 .) … (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973 , 977 .) "Words used in a statute . . . should be given the meaning they bear in ordinary use. [Citation.]" (Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727 , 735 .)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Jan 7, 1997

(DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 601.) … (See Traub v. Board of Retirement, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 798; Summerford v. Board of Retirement (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 128, 132.)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 3, 1994

(Ryan v. Byram (1935) 4 Cal.2d 596, 602; Hicks v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at 235; Beck v. County of Santa Clara, supra, 204 Cal.App.3d at 800-801; County of Butte v. … State Board of Education v. Levit (1959) 52 Cal.App.2d 441, 461-462.)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Feb 7, 1997

Board of Retirement (1983) 34 Cal.3d 793, 798-799; Summerford v. Board of Retirement (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 128, 132.) … Assn. v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Jan 16, 1998

(Meninga v. Raley's, Inc. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 79, 90; Austin v. Board of Retirement (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532.) Section 33050 generally allows the Board to waive "any section" of the Education Code. … This construction is consistent with the Board's administrative interpretation. (See Dix v.

Opinion No. (1998)

California Attorney General Reports · Nov 16, 1998

Recently, in People v. Honig (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289 , the court rejected the contention that section 1090 contained a foreseeability requirement, stating: ". . . … In People v. Watson (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 28 , 37 , the court held that a debtor-creditor relationship is covered by section 1090 as a contract and financial interest.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 10, 1990

Younger v. … Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 U.S. 105 (1967). . . ." (397 U.S. at p. 58, emphasis added). With respect to local appointive boards and commissions, Sailors v.

Opinion No. (2002)

California Attorney General Reports · Jan 11, 2002

(Frazier v. Moffatt (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 379 , 386 .) … Com. v. Smith, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 122 .)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Mar 30, 1999

(Mazolla v. … City of Long Beach (1979) 24 Cal.3d 238, 249; Weis v. State Board of Equalization (1953) 40 Cal.2d 772, 776-777; Goleta Valley Community Hospital v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 28, 1997

(Hicks v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at 242; see also People v. Langdon (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 384, 388-390 [county clerk].) … Assn. v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Jul 18, 1991

In our view, the officer would be a de facto, if not de jure, member of the Board. (See, e.g., In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill (1964) 61 Cal.2d 21, 42; Town of Susanville v. … (Town of Susanville v. Long (1904) 144 Cal. 362, 365 [77 P. 987]; see also Oakland Paving Co. v. Donovan (1912) 19 Cal.App. 488, 494-496 [126 P. 388]; Clark v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Mar 20, 1997

[Citation.]' " (Dibb v. … Footnote No. 2 County mental health board members have not been exempted by law as "inferior officers." (See Miller v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 184, 185-187.)