Case law

Mel v. Franchise Tax Board

119 Cal. App. 3d 898 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 1981

(Mount Vernon Memorial Park v. Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 874, 884 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 275 ]; Killian v. City & County of San Francisco (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 1, 7 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 430 ].) … (State of South Dakota v. Brown (1978) 20 Cal.3d 765, 775 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 758 , 576 P.2d 473 ]; Estate of Boyd (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 125 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 298 ]; County of Orange v.

Mitchell v. Board of Trustees

104 Cal. App. 225 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1930

The record in this regard is quite similar to the proceedings which occurred in the case of Wild Goose Country Club v. County of Butte, 60 Cal. … (Lambert v. Bates, 137 Cal. 676, 679 [ 70 Pac. 777, 778 ] ; Page on California Street Laws, see. 415; Blake v. City of Eureka, 201 Cal. 643, 648 [ 258 Pac. 945 ].) In the case of Lambert v.

Donovan v. Board of Police Commissioners

32 Cal. App. 392 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1916

Proc., secs. 1068, 1074; Miller v. Board of Supervisors, 25 Cal. 93 .) … Board of Supervisors, 131 Cal. 364 , [ 82 Am. St. Rep. 350 , 63 Pac. 663 ]; Lowell v. County Commrs., 146 *397 Mass. 403, [ 16 N. E. 8 ]; Tewksbury v. Middlesex County Commrs., 117 Mass. 563 ; Woodin v.

Mogan v. Board of Police Commissioners

100 Cal. App. 270 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 6, 1929

Los Angeles, 133 Cal. 338 [ 65 Pac. 749 ]; People v. … This principle is recognized in Dufton v.

Mihesuah v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

29 Cal. App. 3d 337 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1972

Petitioner seeks review of Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board opinion and order after reconsideration (February 1, 1972). … The opinion and order after reconsideration of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board is annulled and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. Draper, P. J., and Brown (H.

Rentzer v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

32 Cal. App. 3d 604 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1973

In Jerger v. Commercial Ins. … (People v. Navarro, 7 Cal.3d 248, 274 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 137 , 497 P.2d 481 ].)

Gray v. Franchise Tax Board

235 Cal. App. 3d 36 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1991

(Kellems v. Brown (1972) 163 Conn. 478 [ 313 A.2d 53, 73 ].) However, capital losses may be carried over to future years. (Ruskewich v. Com’r of Revenue Services (1989) 213 Conn. 19 [ 566 A.2d 658, 662 ].) … Franchise Tax Board (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 438 [ 341 P.2d 833 ]; Clemens v. Franchise Tax Board (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 446 [ 341 P.2d 838 ]; Crocker-Anglo Nat. Bank v.

Allan v. Board of Administration

55 Cal. App. 2d 815 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1942

mandate would not be a proper remedy except to correct a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the board of administration. … this section, and the determination of said board shall be final and conclusive.”

Smith v. Board of Education

76 Cal. App. 2d 662 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1946

(Hayman v. City of Los Angeles, 17 Cal.App.2d 674 [ 62 P.2d 1047 ] ; Newbury v. Civil Service Commission, 42 Cal.App.2d 258 [ 108 P.2d 745 ].) … (Gould v. Santa Ana High School Dist., 131 Cal.App. 345 [ 21 P.2d 623 ] ; McKee v. Edgar, 137 Cal.App. 462 [ 30 P.2d 999 ] ; Brightman v. Board of Education, 4 Cal.App.2d 394 [ 41 P.2d 346 ].)

Langer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

258 Cal. App. 2d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1968

[Citations]. ’ ’ In Davison v. Industrial Acc. … Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 210 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 470 ]; Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Board, 65 Cal.2d 438, 445 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 421 P.2d 102 ].)

Morgan v. State Board of Equalization

89 Cal. App. 2d 674 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1949

In Bastajian v. Brown, 19 Cal.2d 209 [ 120 P.2d 9 ], the Supreme Court seemed to revert to the view giving the trial court the determination of the character of the error. … (Bastajian v. Brown, supra, 19 Cal.2d 209 .) If the record shows clearly that there was no clerical error, the recital by the trial court will not be conclusive. (Estate of Durnett, supra, 11 Cal.2d 259 .)

Overend v. Board of Administration

232 Cal. App. 3d 166 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 1991

(Crumpler v. Board of Administration (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 567, 578 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 293 ] [Gov. Code, § 20020, defining “local policeman” in terms referring to “active law enforcement service”]; Boxx v. … Board of Administration (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 79, 85 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 538 ] [same]; Ames v. Board of Retirement (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 906, 912 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 453 ] [Gov.

Robinson v. Franchise Tax Board

120 Cal. App. 3d 72 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1981

So presented, we resolve the case in favor of the board. Beamer v. Franchise Tax Board (1977) 19 Cal.3d 467 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 563 P.2d 238 ] is controlling. … (Beamer v. Franchise Tax Board (1977) 19 Cal.3d 467, 475 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 563 P.2d 238 ].)

Governing Board v. Phillips

231 Cal. App. 2d 94 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1964

BROWN (Gerald), J. The defendant Wendell B. … (Lowenstein v. Newark Board of Education, supra, 33 N.J. 277 [ 163 A.2d 156, 159, 160, 161 ].) In Steinmetz v.

Sheehan v. Board of Police Commissioners

47 Cal. App. 29 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1920

In the case of Kavanagh v. … (French v. Cook, supra.)

Koehn v. State Board of Equalization

166 Cal. App. 2d 109 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1958

In Moran v. … In Barry v.

Wagner v. State Board of Equalization

1 Cal. App. 2d 757 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 1934

The evidence taken before the respondent board upon the hearing of the application of the petitioner for an “on sale” wine and beer license is practically identical with the testimony introduced in the case of Parente v. … State Board of Equalization, Civil No. 5219 (ante, p. 238 [ 36 Pac. (2d) 437 ]), this day decided, to which reference is hereby made.

Kerlin v. Board of Administration

90 Cal. App. 3d 317 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1979

However, “[u]pon revocation of any beneficiary designation, a member may designate the same or another beneficiary by a writing filed with the board.” … Aside from her moral outrage, plaintiff cites Frazier v. Tulare County Bd. of Retirement (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 1046 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 386 ], in support of her constitutional contract infringement argument.

Werfel v. Franchise Tax Board

116 Cal. App. 2d 167 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1953

The appeals of United States and the California Franchise Tax Board are from the same order. … are the duties of an executor or administrator with respect to ascertaining and paying from assets of any particular estate federal and state tax claims which, under the decision of the California Supreme Court in People v.

Nicholson-Brown, Inc. v. City of San Jose

62 Cal. App. 3d 526 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1976

(See MacIsaac & Menke Co. v. Cardox Corp. (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 661, 673 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 523 ].) Denial of prejudgment interest to Nicholson-Brown against the City was proper. … (McNutt v. City of Los Angeles (1921) 187 Cal. 245, 259 [ 201 P. 592 ]; Perkins v. Blauth (1912) 163 Cal. 782, 793 [ 127 P. 50 ]; Estate of Piercy (1914) 168 Cal. 755, 758 [ 145 P. 91 ] [dictum]; Cox v.