Case law

Thorpe v. Board of Examiners

104 Cal. App. 3d 111 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1980

Board of Governors (1977) 19 Cal.3d 705, 711 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 566 P.2d 254 ]). “Moral turpitude,” “immoral” or “unprofessional” conduct must depend upon, and thus relate to, the occupation involved (Morrison v. … (Golde v. Fox, supra, 98 Cal.App.3d 167, 176 .)

Rosenthal v. Board of Supervisors

44 Cal. App. 3d 815 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 1975

In the recent case of Bozung v. … in interest request that this court take judicial notice thereof under Jordan v.

Governing Board v. Superior Court

167 Cal. App. 3d 1158 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1985

(United States v. Morgan, supra, 313 U.S. 409, 422 [ 85 L.Ed. 1429, 1435 ].) It is undisputed that the proceedings before the Governing Board were quasi-judicial and that the Governing Board stated findings. … Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 172-173 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 465 P.2d 854 ]; Greyhound Corp. v.

Overton v. State Personnel Board

46 Cal. App. 3d 721 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1975

(Shepherd v. State Personnel Board (1957) 48 Cal.2d 41 [ 307 P.2d 4 ], Lorimore v. State Personnel Board (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 183, 186 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 640 ].) Our function is described in Blake v. … To prove the charges, there must be substantial evidence to support the board’s ruling. (Martin v. State Personnel Bd. (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 573, 583 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 306 ].)

Davis v. Franchise Tax Board

71 Cal. App. 3d 998 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1977

The Franchise Tax Board and the State Board of Equalization denied their claim. The trial court sustained the taxing agencies and plaintiffs appeal. … (Travis v. Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co., supra, 252 U.S. at pp. 80-81 [64 L.Ed. at pp. 469-470]; Maxwell v. Bugbee, supra, 250 U.S. at p. 543 [63 L.Ed. at pp. 1132-1133]; see also Morey v.

Ennis-Brown Co. v. Richdale Land Co.

47 Cal. App. 508 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 1920

The agreed price was fifty dollars per ton, “free on board boat,” and it was stipulated that an advance payment of $4,500 should be made. … No doubt the general rule as to interest on deposits is correctly stated in Anderson v. Pacific Bank, supra, and Barrere v.

Tetreault v. Franchise Tax Board

255 Cal. App. 2d 277 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1967

In contrast, the power of the state Legislature to levy taxes is inherent and requires no special constitutional grant (Hetzel v. Franchise Tax Board, 161 Cal.App.2d 224, 228 [ 326 P.2d 611 ]). … Bank v. Franchise Tax Board, 179 Cal.App.2d 591 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 905 ], wherein the taxpayer claimed the right to a credit for taxes paid to Canada.

Christman v. Franchise Tax Board

64 Cal. App. 3d 751 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1976

Franchise Tax Board, 172 Cal.App.2d 438 [ 341 P.2d 833 ], Clemens v. Franchise Tax Board, 172 Cal.App.2d 446 [ 341 P.2d 838 ], and Crocker-Anglo Nat. Bank v. Franchise Tax Board, 179 Cal.App.2d 591 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 905 ]. … (Tetreault v. Franchise Tax Bd., 255 Cal.App.2d 277, 282-283 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 326 ]; Crocker-Anglo Nat. Bank v. Franchise Tax Board, 179 Cal.App.2d 591, 594-595 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 905 ].)

Richardson v. Board of Supervisors

203 Cal. App. 3d 486 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1988

Opinion BROWN (G. … (See Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 15 Cal.3d 194, 219-220 ; James v. Board of Dental Examiners (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1096, 1116 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 710 ]; Blake v.

Martin v. Board of Trustees

96 Cal. App. 705 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1929

(Watts v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. App. 692 [ 173 Pac. 183 ]; Ratto v. Board of Trustees, 75 Cal. App. 724 [ 243 Pac. 466 ].) … (Williams v. Gill, 65 Cal. App. 129 [ 223 Pac. 559 ].)

Davis v. Board of Supervisors

7 Cal. App. 571 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1908

There is nothing in Reed v. Collins, 5 Cal. App. 494 , [ 90 Pac. 973 ], in conflict with this view. No such ordinance as we have here was involved in that case. 2. … State v. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439 , [ 44 N. E. 469 , 33 L. R.

Shellenberger v. Board of Equalization

147 Cal. App. 3d 510 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1983

Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 245 ; State of South Dakota v. Brown (1978) 20 Cal.3d 765, 777 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 758 , 576 P.2d 473 ]; Bakkenson v. … (Board of Supervisors v. Lonergan, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 866 ; State Bd. of Equalization v. Board of Supervisors (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 813, 822 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 739 ].)

Hall v. Franchise Tax Board

244 Cal. App. 2d 843 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1966

Franchise Tax Board, 60 Cal.2d 177 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 383 P.2d 409 ]; and Hetzel v. … Hetzel v. Franchise Tax Board, supra, 161 Cal.App.2d 224, 231 , holds that section 17359 does not deny equal protection nor does it act as a penal statute.

Cook v. Board of Supervisors

99 Cal. App. 169 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1929

cities, cities and counties and towns” (approved March 23, 1901 [Stats. 1901, p. 794]), the county clerk of said City and County of San Francisco duly filed with the auditor of said city and county and furnished to the Board … It is admitted that the petitioners have complied with all the provisions of said “Act to provide for the payments of judgments, etc.,” but that said Board of Supervisors has *171 failed, refused and neglected to approve

Tush v. Board of Supervisors

262 Cal. App. 2d 279 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 1968

Written determinations by the board, that facts exist in the record establishing that those requirements have been met, are called for. (See County of Amador v. … State Board of Equalization, 240 Cal.App.2d 205 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 448 ]; Williams v. City of San Bruno, 217 Cal.App.2d 480, 489 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 854 ].)

Chorn v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

245 Cal. App. 4th 1370 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2016

(Longval v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 792, 802.) … (Facundo-Guerrero v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 640, 647 (Facundo- Guerrero).)

McCafferty v. Board of Supervisors

3 Cal. App. 3d 190 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1969

Its board of supervisors may exercise only those powers expressly or impliedly granted to it by the Constitution or statute. (Gov. Code, § 23003; County of Modoc v. Spencer, 103 Cal. 498, 499 [ 37 P. 483 ]; Byers v. … (Atlas Hotels, *193 Inc. v. Acker, 230 Cal.App.2d 658, 665 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 231 ]; see also, Myers v. City Council of Pismo Beach, 241 Cal.App.2d 237, 240-241 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 402 ].)

Bearman v. California Medical Board

176 Cal. App. 4th 1588 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 2009

(Bradley v. Medical Board, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 456 .) … (Bradley v. Medical Board, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 456 .)

Thompson v. Board of Supervisors

180 Cal. App. 3d 555 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1986

Consequently, the Board was obligated to submit the ordinance to the voters in the November 1984 election. (See Citizens Against a New Jail v. Board of Supervisors (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 559, 561 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 36 ].) … (Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 388 , 506 P.2d 212 ] citing Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. State of California (1969) 71 Cal.2d 566, 578 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 456 P.2d 645 ].)

Fjaeran v. Board of Supervisors

210 Cal. App. 3d 434 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 1989

Randi Fjaeran (Fjaeran) has appealed from a judgment denying her petition for a writ of mandate which would have compelle respondent San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors (the County) to *437 set aside its decision distributing … (See Chesney v. Gresham (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 120, 131 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 238 ].)