Case law

Board of Trustees v. Municipal Court

95 Cal. App. 3d 322 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1979

(See McDermott v. Superior Court (1972) *327 6 Cal.3d 693, 696 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 493 P.2d 1161 ].) … Reliance by Cal-Poly on People v. Erving (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 283, 290 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 203 ], and People v.

Vasquez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

226 Cal. App. 3d 867 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1991

(See White v. County of Sacramento (1982) 31 Cal.3d 676 , 680 *874 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 646 P.2d 191 ]; County of Los Angeles v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. … In Sanchez v. Workers’ Comp.

Meyer v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

157 Cal. App. 3d 1036 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1984

A purported finding by the Board or its referee on a question of law is not binding on the appellate court. (Perez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 152 Cal.App.3d 60 .) … (Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 149 Cal.App.3d at p. 575 .) Since an assessment of these factors is a question of law, this court is not bound by the Board’s findings. {Dimmig v.

Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

24 Cal. App. 3d 650 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1972

those of the Board. … Our conclusions herein are not in conflict with the decision in Brown v. Workmen’s Comp.

Amborn v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

19 Cal. App. 3d 953 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1971

[Hawthorn v. Industrial Acc. … If not, the appeals board’s authorized find *956 ings will be binding upon a superior court in an action brought by an employee to enforce such salary liability. (Eason v. City of Riverside, supra; Hawthorn v.

Farrell v. Board of Police Commissioners

1 Cal. App. 5 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1905

The same question was presented in the case of Smith v. Brown, 59 Cal. 672 . That case arose under the present constitution and the charter of Sacramento. … Hill and Smith v. Brown . Counsel for the respondent seems to concede that if People v.

Hardwick v. Board of School Trustees

54 Cal. App. 696 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1921

Again, in State v. … Kelley v. Ferguson, 95 Neb. 63 [50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 266, 144 N. W. 1039 ] , supra. See, also, Mr. Justice Field’s discussion of the subject in Dams v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333 [ 33 L. Ed. 637, 640 , 10 Sup. Ct.

Edgar v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1998

(Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].) In determining that intent, we first examine the words of the statute itself. (California Teachers Assn. v. … (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 645 .)

Chittem v. Board of Directors

77 Cal. App. 252 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1926

In brief, the situation here with respect to the record on appeal from the order is precisely the same as that with respect to the record on appeal from the order in McOmie v. … Board of Directors of Veterans’ Home, ante, p. 248 [ 246 Pac. 155 ], and upon the authority of that case and the cases therein cited, the appeal from the order must be dismissed.

Hurwitz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

97 Cal. App. 3d 854 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1979

On January 4, 1979, Board issued its opinion and decision after reconsideration holding, on the authority of Reynolds v. Workmen’s Comp. … Universal Camera Corp. v.

Power v. State Personnel Board

35 Cal. App. 3d 274 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1973

Respondent board is simply enjoined from exercising its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or fraudulent manner and from making a decision that has no reasonable basis in law or substantial basis in fact. (Bixby v. … State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 637, 638 [ 234 P.2d 981 ]; Drummey v. State Bd. of Funeral Directors (1939) 13 Cal.2d 75, 82-85 [ 87 P.2d 848 ]; Bixby v.

Taketa v. State Board of Equalization

104 Cal. App. 2d 455 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1951

due notice, heard before a representative of the board on March 21, 1942. … Under such circumstances respondent board was certainly entitled to set up defenses of the statute of limitations and of laches. The following language of the court in Wittman v. Board of Police Commissioners, 19 Cal.

Board of Dental Examiners v. Jameson

64 Cal. App. 2d 614 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1944

Board of Dental Examiners, 44 Cal.App.2d 790 [ 113 P.2d 247 ]; Webster v. … (Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 612 [ 55 S.Ct. 570 , 79 L.Ed. 1086 ] ; Webster v. Board of Dental Examiners, supra.)

Lanterman v. Board of Medical Examiners

4 Cal. App. 2d 319 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1935

Lanterman to practice medicine in this state was revoked, was rendered in excess of the jurisdiction of said board, and consequently was void. … The effect of the evidence adduced at the hearing before said board is determinative of the question herein presented.

Glass v. Board of Medical Examiners

50 Cal. App. 389 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1920

In State Board of Medical Examiners v. Macy, 92 Wash. 614 , [ 159 Pac. 801 ], this provision was attacked upon the same grounds urged by appellant here. … After an extensive review of decisions from various states, including Hewitt v.

Stirling v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

189 Cal. App. 3d 1305 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1987

The General Counsel is the prosecutor, and hence is independent of *1310 the Board in this function. (Tex-Cal. Land Management, Inc. v. … (Hollman v. Warren (1948) 32 Cal.2d 351, 355 [ 196 P.2d 562 ]. See also Anderson v. Phillips (1975) 13 Cal.3d 733, 737 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 879 , 532 P.2d 1247 ].)

Solomon v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

24 Cal. App. 3d 282 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1972

Petitioner cites Michon v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 15 Cal.App.3d 917 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 476 ], and Redner v. Workmen’s Comp. … and to take additional evidence (Rushing v.

Lucchesi v. State Board of Equalization

137 Cal. App. 478 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1934

. *480 The record shows that the petitioner has presented an application upon a form prescribed by the respondents, and that all and singular the regulations of the State Board of Equalization have been complied with save … Justice Hart in the case of Old, Homestead Bakery, Inc., v. Marsh, 75 Cal. App. 247 , pages 258 and 259 [ 242 Pac. 749 ].

Davies v. Contractors' State License Board

79 Cal. App. 3d 940 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 1978

of Supervisors v. … In such a case, the rule of judicial review is bounded by Board of Supervisors v. California *949 Highway Commission, supra; Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., supra; and Pitts v. Perluss, supra.

Reeves v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 74 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 2000

(People v. … (Biggers v. Workers' Comp.