Case law

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.

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.

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.

Abril v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

55 Cal. App. 3d 480 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1976

(Franklin v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 18 Cal.App.3d 682, 684 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 201 ].) The increase in disability in this case may be “intangible,” but it is nonetheless real. As explained in Luchini v. Workmen’s Comp. … Also, as explained and illustrated in Nielsen v. Workmen’s Comp.

Reeves v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

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

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

Rushing v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

15 Cal. App. 3d 517 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1971

(Lundberg v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 69 Cal.2d 436, 439 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 445 P.2d 300 ].) This rule is binding upon the board and this court. (Id. at p. 439.) … Moreover, although the board is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 33 Cal.2d 89, 93 [ 199 P.2d 302 ]; Pacific Freight Lines v. Industrial Acc.

Gunn v. State Board of Equalization

123 Cal. App. 2d 283 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1954

However, in 1934 in Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford University v. … They, cite three decisions (Wright v. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co., Fed.Cas. No. 18087 [ 8 Blatchf. 14 ]; Steck v. Prentice, 43 Colo. 17 [ 95 P. 552 ]; and Flowers v.

Williams v. Public Employment Relations Board

204 Cal. App. 4th 1119 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2012

(See Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) 431 U.S. 209, 234-235 [ 52 L.Ed.2d 261 , 97 S.Ct. 1782 ].) … Lehnert v.

McConnell v. Board of Supervisors

7 Cal. App. 385 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 1908

McConnell v. … Respondent’s contention is that the action of the board of supervisors upon such hearing was judicial; upon that assumption the intendments in favor of the regularity *387 of the judgment of such board, nothing to the contrary

Hahn v. State Board of Equalization

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 282 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1999

(Milligan v. … Code, §§ 452, 459; State Bd. of Equalization v.

Ortiz v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

4 Cal. App. 4th 392 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1992

When applicant could not effect personal service on Capone, respondent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (board) ordered that summons be served by publication. … Accordingly, the board properly denied reconsideration of the dismissal of applicant’s claim. The order of the board is affirmed. Elia, J., and Agliano, J., * concurred.

Strong v. State Board of Equalization

66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 657 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 2007

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 180; accord, Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 534-535 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ].) … (Board of Supervisors v. Lonergan (1980) 27 Cal.3d 855, 863 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 820 , 616 P.2d 802 ].)

Marsh v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2005

(Pullman Kellogg v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 450, 454 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 783 , 605 P.2d 422 ]; Ballard v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1971) 3 Cal.3d 832, 837 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 478 P.2d 937 ]; Franklin v. … Code Regs., tit. 8, *914 § 10341; Gee v. Workers’ Comp.

Hulse v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

63 Cal. App. 3d 221 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1976

Whether to order commutation in the present case, and whether to order the commuted lump sum deposited subject to the board’s continuing control, therefore rested within the board’s discretion. (Jenkins v. … (Wilson v. Gallegher (1914) 1 I.A.C., Pt. II, 306, 308.)

Sobiniak v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

156 Cal. App. 3d 448 · California Court of Appeal · May 25, 1984

On March 9, 1982, a board referee ordered that UEF be joined as a party defendant. … The order of respondent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denying reconsideration is affirmed. Gilbert, J., and Abbe, J., concurred.

Smyers v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

157 Cal. App. 3d 36 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1984

In late 1982 employer discontinued the payments for housekeeping services relying upon the Board’s decision in Keil v. … (Keil v. State of California, supra, 46 Cal.Comp.Cases at pp. 701-702, italics in original.) The Board in formulating the Keil rule looked at section 4600 in a strict definitional sense.

First Western Bank & Trust Co. v. Brown

199 Cal. App. 2d 274 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 1962

and Keith Brown.” … Herbert, 186 Md. 453 [ 47 A.2d 360, 364 [7]]; Davis v. Mitchell, 27 Tenn.App. 182 [ 178 S.W.2d 889, 904 [24-26]]; Cooper v.

Matea v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 314 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2006

The Board filed an opinion and order denying further reconsideration on November 3, 2005. The Board stated in part, “the Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. … This rule is binding upon the Board as well as this court. (Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp.

Avila v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

14 Cal. App. 3d 33 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1970

Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 57 Cal.2d 589, 593 [ 21 Cal. Rptr. 545 , 371 P.2d 281 ].) … Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hutchinson), supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 53 .)

Tringham v. State Board of Education

137 Cal. App. 2d 733 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1955

(Town of Hayward *736 v. Pimental, 107 Cal. 386 [ 40 P. 545 ]; Kleiner v. Garrison, supra; 16 Cal.Jur. 870, § 68.) … Contractors’ State License Board, 124 Cal. App.2d 149,154 [ 268 P.2d 139 ].) In Ashdown v. State, 135 Cal.App.2d 291, 297 [ 287 P.2d 176 ], it was said, quoting from Dare v.