Case law

Opinion No. (1998)

California Attorney General Reports · Nov 18, 1998

." (§ 25210.3 ; see Frommhagen v. Board of Supervisors (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 1292 , 1296 .) … (See Frommhagen v. Board of Supervisors , supra , 197 Cal.App.3d at 1296 ; 62 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra , at 838-839.)

Opinion No. (2000)

California Attorney General Reports · Mar 14, 2000

principle that any ambiguity in a provision calling for the forfeiture of an existing office, and disqualification from holding public office, should be resolved in favor of continued eligibility (Helena Rubenstein Internat. v. … leave to sue in quo warranto is DENIED. 1 Undesignated section numbers hereinafter are to the Government Code. 2 The second paragraph of the oath required by the Constitution was ruled invalid by the Supreme Court in Vogel v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Jun 20, 1996

(Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Dept. etc. Regulation (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 372, 379; see also People v. Drake (1977) 19 Cal.3d 749, 755.)" (Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. … (Safer v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 230, 237-238; see Board of Trustees v. Judge (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 920, 927; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 13, 23 (1990).)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Aug 13, 1991

County of Madera v. … (See generally Montgomery v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Jun 3, 1986

(Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 781, 788.) Interpretive constructions that render some words surplusage, defy common sense, or lead to mischief or absurdity are to be avoided. (Fields v. … (Steilberg v. Lackner (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 780, 785; Alford v. Pierno (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 688.) Moreover, we must accord "great weight and respect to the administrative construction" of a statute.

Opinion No. (1999)

California Attorney General Reports · Jul 30, 1999

Union v. City of Redwood City (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 53 . … (See People v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Nov 21, 1997

(Industrial Indemnity Co. v. City any County of San Francisco (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 999, 1008.) … (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1386-1387.)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Apr 12, 1996

(Bear River Etc., Corp. v. County of Placer (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 684, 690.) … (Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1082, 1097; cf. Salazar v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Sep 28, 2017

Engineers, Inc. v. … Co. of America v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 5, 1995

(City of Berkeley v. Cukierman (1993) 14 Cal. App.4th 1331, 1338-1339.) "[I]f the meaning of the words is not clear, courts must . . . refer to the legislative history." (Halbert's Lumber, Inc. v. … (Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1172, 1180.)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Mar 5, 1998

(See Walters v. Weed (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1, 7; Smith v. Smith (1955) 45 Cal.2d 235, 239; DeMiglio v. Mashore (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1268; Fenton v. … As stated in City of Campbell v. Mosk (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 640, 650: 'The exercise of the discretion of the Attorney General in the grant of such approval to sue calls for care and delicacy.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Feb 24, 1992

Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 196; Uhl v. Baderacco (1926) 199 Cal. 270, 283; Cowell v. Martin (1872) 42 Cal. 605, 613; Garson v. … Thomson v. Call, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 646; People v. Deysher (1934) 2 Cal.2d 141, 146; Millbrae Assn for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae, supra, 262 Cal.App.2d at 236; Terry v.

Opinion No. (2001)

California Attorney General Reports · Nov 16, 2001

In I.N.S. v. … In contrast, a much different situation prevailed in Brown v.

Opinion No. (2006)

California Attorney General Reports · May 19, 2006

(See § 6255; Board of Trustees of California State University v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 889 , 896 ; Gilbert v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 606 , 610-611 ; City of Hemet v. … [Citation.]" ( Brown v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 509 , 521 .) Furthermore, we are required to construe statutes to avoid possible constitutional infirmities. ( United States v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 20, 1996

This is so since to give the board of supervisors confirmation or veto power of the court's candidate would in effect make the board the joint appointing power. (Cf. Wetherbee v. … (See Anderson v. Superior Court (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1152, 1166; People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 264; Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131, 147-148; Rowe v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Jun 24, 1987

The Question of Sanctions Under the decision of Mazzola v. … Davis' representation of Graham while on the county board appears to be an isolated incident rather than a persistent practice. Sparks v.

Opinion No. (2000)

California Attorney General Reports · Mar 3, 2000

(Campagna v. City of Sanger (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 533 , 538 ; Millbrae Assn. for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 222 , 236-237 ; see also Stigall v. … However, the commissioner's spouse is compensated as the city's representative on the governing board of the joint powers agency.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 5, 1999

No. 104 v. … (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1147; Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1165-1166; Regents of University of California v.

Opinion No. (1997)

California Attorney General Reports · May 23, 1997

the board members' current terms. … Cory , supra , 27 Cal.3d at 540 ; Betts v. Board of Administration , supra , 21 Cal.3d at 866 ; 70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra , 218.)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Dec 17, 1987

Goldsmith v. … (Welsh v. Arizona State Board of Accountancy (1971) 484 P.2d 201, 204.) In this regard, a primary rule of construction is that a statute should be construed, if possible, so as to render it valid and constitutional.