Case law

Luchini v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

7 Cal. App. 3d 141 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1970

Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. … (Mann v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 333 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 237 ]; Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.

McPheeters v. Board of Medical Examiners

82 Cal. App. 2d 709 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1947

The situation in this case is well expressed in the opinion in Atkinson v. … While the court should refuse to issue an alternative writ where the petition is not sufficient (Patterson v.

Davis v. State Board of Optometry

35 Cal. App. 2d 428 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 1939

(Drummey v. State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, supra, pp. 84, 86.) … Proc.; Williams v. Wren, 88 Cal. App. 607 [ 263 Pac. 1038 ]; Black v. Board of Police Commrs., 17 Cal. App. 310, 313 [ 119 Pac. 674 ]; Taylor v. Taylor, 192 Cal. 71, 80 [ 218 Pac. 756 , 51 A. L. R 1074].)

Farquar v. Board of Education

95 Cal. App. 3d 761 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1979

The Board filed its answers to the petitions. The *763 actions were consolidated and after hearing, the court granted writs of mandate commanding the Board to grant paid sick leave to Farquar and Bradshaw. … Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Cologne, J., concurred.

Galloway v. Franchise Tax Board

31 Cal. App. 3d 928 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1973

The motions of plaintiffs were denied and those of defendant Franchise Tax Board were granted. Judgments of dismissal followed, and plaintiffs appeal. Appellants rely upon the code provision (Gov. … Brown (H. C.), J., and Caldecott, J., concurred. A petition for a rehearing was denied May 25, 1973, and appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 28, 1973.

Auerbach v. Board of Supervisors

71 Cal. App. 4th 1427 · California Court of Appeal · May 10, 1999

(Stratton v. First Nat. Life Ins. … Dist. v.

Cohn v. County Board of Supervisors

135 Cal. App. 2d 180 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 1955

The court further found that the proceedings before the board of supervisors under section 662 of the zoning ordinance accorded due process, and were within its jurisdiction (see Cooper v. … Moreover, both appellants were present at the hearing before the zoning board. Having appeared there, it is questionable whether they may now assert that they did not have legal notice. (North Side etc. Assn. v.

Rabago v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

84 Cal. App. 3d 200 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 1978

Portland Cement Co. v. Cal. Unemp. Ins. Appeals Board, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d 263, at p. 274 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].) … Portland Cement Co. v. Cal. Unemp. Ins. Appeals Board, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d 263, 268 .)

Bechtel v. Board of Retirement

102 Cal. App. 3d 9 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 1980

Board of Medical Examiners (1968) 68 Cal.2d 67, 72 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 435 P.2d 553 ]; Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 71 Cal.2d 907, 916 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 458 P.2d 33 ]; Bixby v. … Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 149 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 481 P.2d 242 ]; Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 46, fn. 18 ; Board of Education v.

Engelmann v. State Board of Education

2 Cal. App. 4th 47 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1991

(Board of Ed. of Oakland, supra, 55 Cal. at p. 335 .) In State Board of Education v. … Co. v.

Evenson v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

62 Cal. App. 3d 1005 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1976

In fact, in Labor Board v. … In Amuchastegui v.

Brennfleck v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

3 Cal. App. 3d 666 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 1970

In Temescal Rock Co. v. Industrial Acc. … (Kunakoff v. Woods, supra, 166 Cal.App.2d at p. 67 .) The second, under the law as interpreted by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board, would have only the right to share in the $17,500 death benefits.

Sweetnam v. Board of Police Commissioners

56 Cal. App. 644 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1922

The defendants and respondents are the board of police commissioners of the city of Los Angeles and the individual members of this board. … It is agreed that if such a proceeding is quasi- judicial the action of the board is subject to review and that, if it is executive in its nature, the courts have no jurisdiction to review the action of the board.

Kampner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

86 Cal. App. 3d 376 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1978

This is the standard that the Board used in its earlier decision. “We do not understand Kerley v. … WCAB, 42 CCC 986 (writ denied; Hearing denied); Kombrink v. WCAB 41 CCC 580 (1976) (writ denied, Hearing denied); Holloway v. WCAB 41 CCC 448 (1976) (writ denied); Adams v.

Ross v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

21 Cal. App. 3d 949 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1971

While the Board accepts the fact that both claimant and Mrs. … Exchange v. Ind. Acc.

Levine v. State Board of Equalization

142 Cal. App. 2d 760 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 1956

In the case of People v. … (See also Stockton Sav. & Loan Bank v. Massanet, 18 Cal.2d 200 [ 114 P.2d 592 ] ; Board of Soc. Welfare v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.2d 90 [ 162 P.2d 635 ] ; California Emp. Stab. Com. v.

Peradotto v. State Personnel Board

25 Cal. App. 3d 30 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1972

to reexamination in a trial de novo but are to be upheld by a reviewing court if they are supported by substantial evidence (Shepherd v. *33 State Personnel Board, 48 Cal.2d 41, 46-47 [ 307 P.2d 4 ]; Genser v. … (Lorimore v. State Personnel Board, supra, p. 186.)

Betancourt v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

16 Cal. App. 3d 408 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1971

(See Kauffman v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 829, 838-840 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 620 ]; Zeeb v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., supra, 67 Cal.2d 496, 501-502 .) … (Erlich v. Superior Court (1965) 63 Cal.2d 551, 556 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 473 , 407 P.2d 649 ]; Dunzweiler v. Superior Court (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 569 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 331 ].)

Froehlich v. Board of Directors

35 Cal. App. 3d 98 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1973

(Falltrick v. Sullivan (1898) 119 Cal. 613, 618 [ 51 P. 947 ]; Bergevin v. Curtz (1899) 127 Cal. 86, 88-89 [ 59 P. 312 ]; Keane v. Mihaly (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 1037, 1041 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 263 ]; McMillan v. … Thus as stated in Welch v.

Burr v. Board of Supervisors

30 Cal. App. 755 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 1916

claim and demand filed with said board by the plaintiff, for the payment by said city and county of a judgment for the recovery from said corporation of certain taxes illegally collected by it. … This being so, he was entitled to have the writ issued requiring the board to follow the usual custom in respect to the approval and payment of claims against said city. Judgment affirmed.