Case law

Gonzalez v. State Personnel Board

33 Cal. App. 4th 422 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1995

(Shea v. Board of Medical Examiners (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 564, 579 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 653 ], citations omitted.) … (Isbell v.

Strauss v. Board of Supervisors

181 Cal. App. 2d 133 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1960

(Uhl v. Collins, 217 Cal. 1 [ 17 P.2d 99 , 85 A.L.R. 1370 ], initiative petition; Rogers v. Board of Directors of Pasadena, 218 Cal. 221 [ 22 P.2d 509 ], annexation petition; Beecham v. … It appears from Uhl v. Collins, supra, as well as from Beecham v. Burns, supra, 34 Cal.App. 754 , and Knowlton v.

Board of Retirement v. Terry

40 Cal. App. 3d 1091 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 1974

In Board of Administration v. Ames, 215 Cal.App.2d 215 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 917 ], the reviewing court was faced with the identical questions before us. … (Board of Administration v. Ames, supra, 215 Cal.App.2d 215, 228-229 ; cf. Bilyeu v. State Employees’ Retirement System, 58 Cal.2d 618, 623-625 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 562 , 375 P.2d 442 ].)

Jones v. Board of Trustees

8 Cal. App. 2d 146 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1935

(Fuller v. Berkeley School District, 2 Cal. (2d) 152 [ 40 Pac. (2d) 831 ].) … The rule of the case last cited was adopted as controlling in Davis v.

Waters v. Civil Service Board

133 Cal. App. 2d 733 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1955

(Haub v. Tuttle, 80 Cal.App. 561 [ 251 P. 925 ]; Rumetsch v. City of Oakland, 135 Cal.App. 267 [ 26 P.2d 677 ].) … Appellants cite Cotter v.

Coburn v. State Personnel Board

83 Cal. App. 3d 801 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 15, 1978

Following the decision in Shelly, the Board promulgated Rule 61, incorporating the due process requirements stated in Shelly. (See Barber v. … The Board is not required to review the transcript or consider the arguments of the parties. (See Sinclair v.

Lansing v. Board of Education

7 Cal. App. 2d 211 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1935

(Esberg v. Badaracco, 202 Cal. 110 [ 259 Pac. 730 ]; People v. Mertz, 2 Cal. (2d) 136 [ 39 Pac. (2d) 422 ].) … (Gould v. Santa Ana High School District, 131 Cal. App. 345 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 623 ]; Brown v. City of Visalia, 141 Cal. 372 [ 74 Pac. 1042 ] ; Ward v. San Diego School District, 203 Cal. 712 [ 265 Pac. 821 ].)

Andrews v. Board of Supervisors

134 Cal. App. 3d 274 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1982

Appellant has quoted the folowing language from Placentia Fire Fighters v. … Wkrs. v. N. L. R. B. (5th Cir. 1966) 368 F.2d 12, 17 , cert. den. 389 U.S. 837 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 99 , 88 S.Ct. 53 ]; Steele v. L. & N. R. Co. (1944) 323 U.S. 192 [ 89 L.Ed. 173 , 65 S.Ct. 226 ].)

Coughlin v. Board of Administration

152 Cal. App. 3d 70 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1984

Ruster (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 379, 383 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 812 ]; accord, Kerlin v. Board of Administration (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 317 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 257 ].) … (See, e.g., Hudson v. Posey (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 89 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 803 ].)

Adduddell v. Board of Administration

8 Cal. App. 3d 243 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1970

(Sc hneider v. Schneider, supra, at p. 341 .) … (Kunakoff v.

Swift v. Board of Supervisors

16 Cal. App. 72 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 1911

To same effect see Paul v. Carver, 24 Pa. 207 , [ 64 Am. Dec. 649 ]; State v. Deer Lodge Co., 19 Mont. 582 , [ 49 Pac. 147 ] ; Coffey Co. v. Venard, 10 Kan. 80 . … As said in Bradbury v. Walton, 94 Ky. 167 , [ 21 S.

Wertin v. Franchise Tax Board

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 644 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1998

(Rihn v. Franchise Tax Board (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 356, 360 [ 280 P.2d 893 ]; see also Meanley v. … Indeed, the purpose of the statute is to put the board on notice of a claim, and the Wertins’ letter of November 21, 1994, adequately accomplishes such notice to the board. (Newman v.

Dawn v. State Personnel Board

91 Cal. App. 3d 588 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 1979

(Brush v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 120, 123 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 366 ]; Harmon v. Board of Retirement (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 689, 691-692 [ 133 Cal.Rptr. 154 ].) … (See Paule v. State Personnel Board (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 32, 35-36 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 38 ].) Being on an eligible list affords no right to an appointment. (Graham v. Bryant (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 66, 70-71 [ 266 P.2d 44 ].)

Newman v. State Personnel Board

10 Cal. App. 4th 41 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1992

In assessing whether substantial evidence exists, we consider all evidence presented, including that which fairly detracts from the evidence supporting the Board’s determination. (County of San Diego v. … In the proceedings before the Board, CHP had the burden of proving plaintiff’s inability to perform the work of her position or any other available position. (Overton v.

Cole v. Board of Supervisors

27 Cal. App. 528 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 1915

(Ingersoll v. Kirby, Walker’s Ch. (Mich.), 27; State Savings Bank v. Hosmer, 95 Mich. 100 , [ 54 N. W. 632 ].) The notice as published was sufficient. … (Borchard v. Supervisors, 144 Cal. 10 , [ 77 Pac. 708 ].) The judgment is affirmed. Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

Sylva v. Board of Supervisors

208 Cal. App. 3d 648 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1989

W. v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 219, 231 [ 215 Cal.Rptr. 130 ].) … (See Geiger v. Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal.2d 832, 839-840 [ 313 P.2d 545 ].)

Kalinowski v. Board of Education

90 Cal. App. 3d 245 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1979

to receive her “regular salary and all other benefits of employment during the period dating from his [her] suspension to the filing of the report of the panel with the governing board.” … V Although not carried into the formal judgment, the conclusions of law provide as follows: “8.

Stevens v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

241 Cal. App. 4th 1074 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2015

(See Lyng v. Payne (1986) 476 U.S. 926, 942; Walters v. … Hersh, Counsel 28 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Theodore A.

Chen v. Franchise Tax Board

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 268 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1999

(Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816, 828 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 823 P.2d 1216 ]; Security Pacific National Bank v. Wozab (1990) 51 Cal.3d 991, 1003-1004 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 800 P.2d 557 ]; Brown v. … Dist. v. Klukkert (1939) 13 Cal.2d 191, 196 [ 88 P.2d 685 ].) The Supreme Court has also held: “When interpreting a statute our primary task is to determine the Legislature’s intent. (Brown v.

Gutierrez v. Board of Retirement

62 Cal. App. 4th 745 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1998

(Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. v. … The Board is entitled to its costs of appeal. Ortega, Acting P. J., and Masterson, J., concurred.