Case law

Matteson v. Board of Education

104 Cal. App. 647 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1930

(Lochr v. Board of Education, 12 Cal. App. 671 [ 108 Pac. 325, 327 ].) … (Harby v. Board of Education, 2 Cal. App. 418 [ 83 Pac. 1081 ]; Kramer v. Board of Police Commrs., 39 Cal. App. 396 [ 179 Pac. 216 ]; Barber v.

Santillano v. State Personnel Board

117 Cal. App. 3d 620 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1981

(Wiles v. State Personnel Board (1942) 19 Cal.2d 344, 351 [ 121 P.2d 673 ]; Brown v. State Personnel Board (1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 70, 75 [ 110 P.2d 497 ].) … Wiles v. State Personnel Board, supra, 19 Cal.2d 344, 351 .) If these time limits are not met, no rejection is effected. (Wiles v. State Personnel Board, supra, 19 Cal.2d 344, 352 .)

Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

258 Cal. App. 2d 35 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 1968

Brown filed an application for industrial injuries with the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board on April 11, 1966. … Lynch, supra; Bartlett v. Cicero Light H. & P. Co., 177 Ill. 68 [ 52 N.E. 339 , 340, 69 Am.St. Rep. 206].) We only refer to the liability to Mrs. Brown.

Brown v. California Pension Administrators & Consultants, Inc.

45 Cal. App. 4th 333 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1996

(Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 236 ].) Appellants rely on Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc. (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 690 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 222 ] and Duffy v. … Much like the situation in Petersen v.

Board of Trustees v. Hartman

246 Cal. App. 2d 756 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1966

(See Horosko v. School Dist. of Mount Pleasant Tp., 335 Pa. 369, 371 [ 6 A.2d 866, 868 ].) This idea was expressed by Justice Spence in Board of Education v. … As said in Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 66 Cal.App. 157, 168 [ 225 P. 783 ] : ‘. . .

Peart v. Board of Supervisors

145 Cal. App. 2d 8 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 1956

(Vernon v. Board of Supervisors, 142 Cal. 513, 515 [ 76 P. 253 ], followed and approved in Borchard v. … There is nothing whatever to indicate a limitation upon the discretion long previously found by Vernon v. Board of Supervisors, supra, Borchard v. Board of Supervisors, supra, and People v.

Thompson v. State Personnel Board

201 Cal. App. 3d 423 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1988

An appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Board, even if another equally reasonable determination might have been made. (Flowers v. … (Anderson v.

Gaenslen v. Board of Directors

185 Cal. App. 3d 563 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1985

(Applebaum v. Board of Directors (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 648, 657 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 831 ].) … (Cipriotti v. Board of Directors (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 144, 155 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 367 ].) The function of the trial and appellate courts is the *573 same with respect to such review. 5 (Pick v.

Alberts v. Board of Supervisors

193 Cal. App. 2d 225 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1961

Appellants rely entirely on McCluskey v. Sparks (1955), 80 Ariz. 15 [ 291 P.2d 791 ] ; Sparks v. … Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 216 Cal. 474 [ 14 P.2d 512 ] ; Mahoney v. City of San Diego, 198 Cal. 388 [ 245 P. 189 ] ; Birch v. County of Orange, 186 Cal. 736 [ 200 P. 647 ]; and City of Los Angeles v.

Parker v. State Personnel Board

120 Cal. App. 3d 84 · California Court of Appeal · May 27, 1981

(Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 217, fn. 31 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 539 P.2d 774 ].) We review the board’s decision in light of the entire administrative record. (Tripp v. … Pettit v. State Board of Education (1973) 10 Cal.3d 29, 35 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 665 , 513 P.2d 889 , 78 A.L.R.3d 1 ]; Governing Board v. Metcalf (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 546, 550 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 724 ]).

People v. Community Release Board

96 Cal. App. 3d 792 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 1979

In Way v. … (Way v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 181, conc. opn. of Friedman, J.) Way was recently cited with approval in a unanimous decision by our Supreme Court. (Younger v.

Walker v. State Personnel Board

16 Cal. App. 3d 550 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1971

In determining the substantiality of evidence we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the board and draw all legitimate and reasonable inferences in support of the Board’s findings. (Gubser v. … (Schneider v. Civil Service Com., 137 Cal.App.2d 277, 284 [ 290 P.2d 306 ].) In Neely v.

Duffy v. State Personnel Board

232 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 1991

The board again rejected the ALJ’s decision. … (Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 , 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ]; 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Constitutional Law, §§ 599, 603, pp. 51, 57.)

Poet v. State Air Resources Board

218 Cal. App. 4th 681 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2013

Brown, and Joshua J. Bettencourt for National Biodiesel Board and California Biodiesel Alliance as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents. Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Matthew D. Zinn; Timothy J. … Brown (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 390, 405; Church v.

Cutler v. Franchise Tax Board

208 Cal. App. 4th 1247 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 2012

In Armco Inc. v. … Co. v.

Sheehy v. Franchise Tax Board

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 760 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 2000

Plaintiffs Patrick F. and Arlene Sheehy appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant Franchise Tax Board (Board) in an action alleging that the Board assessed usurious interest on unpaid taxes. … (See Dianchenko v.

Charles v. Board of Administration

232 Cal. App. 3d 1410 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1991

Schaeffer v. Public Employees’ Retirement System (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 609 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 647 ] is instructive. … (Neeley v. Board of Retirement (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 815, 822 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 841 ].)

Mitchell v. State Personnel Board

90 Cal. App. 3d 808 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1979

(Goddard v. South Bay Union High School Dist. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 98, 105 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 701 ]; Shoban v. Board of Trustees (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 534, 541 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 112 ].) … (Skelly v.

Sleeper v. Board of Supervisors

60 Cal. App. 744 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 1923

The evidence produced at the hearing before the board is as silent as the petition on the foregoing questions. … said board, be benefited by such district be included within such proposed district.”

Heninger v. Board of Supervisors

186 Cal. App. 3d 601 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1986

(v).) … “This court and the trial court occupy identical positions with respect to review of the Board’s decision in this case.” (Merz v. Board of Supervisors (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 933, 938 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 370 ].)