Case law

Jordan v. Board of Supervisors

99 Cal. App. 2d 356 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1950

In Board of Revenue of Covington County v. … Fayette County Board of Education v. Tompkins, 212 Ky. 751 , 280 S.W. 114 .”

Dorsa v. Board of Supervisors

23 Cal. App. 2d 217 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1937

In Skaggs v. … Those cases were discussed and approved by the court in Ganley v.

Andrews v. Franchise Tax Board

275 Cal. App. 2d 653 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1969

Franchise Tax Board (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 356, 360 [ 280 P.2d 893 ] ; Meanley v. McColgan (1942) 49 Cal.App.2d 203, 209 [ 121 P.2d 45 ] ; 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, § 460, pp. 475-476.) … The administrative Board of Tax Appeals held that the 1938 income was subject to the statute in effect that year. Citing Snell v.

Totten v. Board of Supervisors

43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 244 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2006

The Citizens court noted that in Rossi v. Brown, supra, 9 Cal.4th at page 703, our Supreme Court had “referred to reasoning it had developed in Geiger v. … In mating this argument, appellant relies principally on McCafferty v. Board of Supervisors (1969) 3 Cal.App.3d 190 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 229 ], and People's Advocate, Inc. v.

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.

Campbell v. Board of Administration

103 Cal. App. 3d 565 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1980

The Board’s “contemporaneous construction of the... [1970 amendment] is *571 entitled to great weight and ought not to be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.” (Crumpler v. … City of Los Angeles (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 623, 626 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 690 ], italics added; see also Goins v.

Mitchell v. Franchise Tax Board

183 Cal. App. 3d 1133 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1986

(Solberg v. Superior Court *1137 (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, 198 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 561 P.2d 1148 ]; Caminetti v. Pac. Mutual L. Ins. Co. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 344, 353-354 [ 139 P.2d 908 ].) … Gov’t Code § 860.2, Nadon v.

Martinez v. BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS

183 Cal. App. 4th 578 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 2010

Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 443 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 574 , 111 P.2d 610 ] [“ ‘may’ is ordinarily construed as permissive, whereas ‘shall’ is ordinarily construed as mandatory .. .”]; Mass v. … Times (Oct. 31, 1972); People v.

Ortiz v. Board of Supervisors

107 Cal. App. 3d 866 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1980

Dist. v. … Relying on County of Madera v.

Brown v. TGS Management Co., LLC

California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 2020

Brown argues we may review the arbitration award under Moncharsh v. … (See The Retirement Group v.

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.

Brown v. Sequoia Union High School District

89 Cal. App. 2d 604 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1949

In an action for personal injuries Bruce Brown, a student in Sequoia Union High School, after a jury trial recovered a judgment against the high school district. … The case therefore falls squarely within the holding of Johnson v.

Constancio v. State Personnel Board

179 Cal. App. 3d 980 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 1986

(Barber, supra, at p. 404 ; Nightingale v. State Personnel Board, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 515 .) In Parker v. … In Barber v.

Clemens v. Franchise Tax Board

172 Cal. App. 2d 446 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 1959

The issues of law presented by this appeal are essentially the same as those involved in the companion case of Burnham v. Franchise Tax Board, ante, p. 438 [ 341 P.2d 833 ], this day decided. … In our opinion in Burnham v. Franchise Tax Board, ante, p. 438 [ 341 P.2d 833 ], we have quoted the pertinent provisions of the applicable California and Canadian statutes.

Roe v. State Personnel Board

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 2004

(See Barber v. State Personnel Board (1976) 18 Cal.3d 395, 403 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 556 P.2d 306 ] (Barber); Kempland v. … The Department relies on Mitchell v.

Merriman v. Board of Supervisors

138 Cal. App. 3d 889 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 1983

They were proponents of a referendum petition presented to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (hereafter, Board). … The Board, however, took no action on the referendum petition.

Cohen v. Board of Supervisors

178 Cal. App. 3d 447 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1986

(City of Santa Monica v. … White v.

Matus v. Board of Administration

177 Cal. App. 4th 597 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 2009

(Hughes v. Board of Architectural Examiners (1998) 17 Cal.4th 763, 775 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 , 952 P.2d 641 ].) … (See Poliak v. Board of Psychology (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 342, 350 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 866 ].)

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.

Children etc. Com. of Fresno County v. Brown

228 Cal. App. 4th 45 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2014

No. 11CECG01077) v. OPINION EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Governor, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. … Brown v. Tehama County Bd. Of Supervisors (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 422 (Tehama County).