Case law

Anaconda Co. v. Franchise Tax Board

130 Cal. App. 3d 15 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1982

(Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., supra, 117 Cal.App.3d 988, 998 ; Standard Register Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d 125, 136 .) … (Coca-Cola Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1945) 25 Cal.2d 918, 921 [ 156 P.2d 1 ]; also see Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 647 [ 335 P.2d 672 ]; Container Corp. of America v.

California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Board

144 Cal. App. 3d 27 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 1983

Dist. v. Commission on Professional Competence (1977) 20 Cal.3d 309, 314 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 439 , 572 P.2d 53 ]; San Dieguito Union High School Dist. v. … Dist. v. Commission on Professional Competence, supra, 20 Cal.3d at pp. 313-314.)

Redmond v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

36 Cal. App. 3d 302 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1973

We have concluded that the board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. In Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … Our function on appellate review is to determine whether the decision of the board is supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. (LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

Guerra v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

168 Cal. App. 3d 195 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1985

Judicial review of the Board’s decision on factual matters is limited to determining whether the decision, based on the entire record, is supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952, subd. (d); Lamb v. … (Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, at pp. 280-281.)

Bone v. State Board of Cosmetology

275 Cal. App. 2d 851 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 1969

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for an injunction against the State Board of Barber Examiners and the State Board of Cosmetology. … shave or trim the beard, or cut the hair of any person for cosmetic purposes except that persons included in subdivision (d) may cut the hair. ’ ’ That section was the subject of comment and judicial interpretation in Mains v.

Hinkle v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

175 Cal. App. 3d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1985

—Petitioner (sometimes herein called applicant) seeks review of an opinion and order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or Board) denying his petition for reconsideration of an order by a Workers’ Compensation … The decision of the Board was rendered by a three-member panel, which divided two to one.

Cabral v. State Board of Control

112 Cal. App. 3d 1012 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1980

(See Cucamonga County Water Dist. v. Southwest Water Co. (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 245, 260 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 557 ]; Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 1, 5-6 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 431 ].) … Eligibility for benefits under the Act, fixed by the Act, cannot be altered by the Board. (See § 11342.2; Cooper v. Swoap (1974) 11 Cal.3d 856, 864 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 524 P.2d 97 ]; Morris v.

Herzig v. Board of Medical Examiners

135 Cal. App. 41 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 1933

It was further shown that a reciprocity contract had been entered into between the respondent board and the Board of Medical Examiners of the State of Nevada under the terms of which each state was allowed to require satisfactory … The evidence shows that appellant is not entitled to have the Board of Medical Examiners issue to him a license to practice without first passing the required examination.

Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court

147 Cal. App. 3d 206 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 1983

(Cf., Stirling v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 48 Cal.App.3d 184, 189 .) … However, as revealed by the analysis in Driscoll v.

Pham v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

78 Cal. App. 4th 626 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 2000

Fund v. Brown (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 188, 199 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 98 ]; Western Electric Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 629, 644 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 436 ].) … (See, e.g., Westside Produce Co. v. Workers’ Comp.

Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

237 Cal. App. 4th 193 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2015

(Edison California Stores v. McColgan (1947) 30 Cal.2d 472, 481; Handlery v. Franchise Tax Board (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 970, 973 (Handlery).) … Co. v.

Rodgers v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

168 Cal. App. 3d 567 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1985

The Board majority also opined that the decisions in Sumner v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 965 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 663 P.2d 534 ] and Morehouse v. Workers’ Comp. … In fact, the Supreme Court in Sumner v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 33 Cal.3d at page 967 , explicitly directed the Board to devise a new form for compromise and release. 5 Here, as in Morehouse v. Workers’ Comp.

Petrocelli v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

45 Cal. App. 3d 635 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1975

Applicant’s petition to the board for reconsideration was denied. … (See Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317-318 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 355 , 475 P.2d 451 ].) The issue is one of law.

Clark v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

230 Cal. App. 3d 684 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1991

v. … (See Reese v. Kizer (1988) 46 Cal.3d 996, 998, fn. 2 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 299 , 760 P.2d 495 ]; Smith v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 862, 868 [ 265 Cal.Rptr. 466 ]; Garfinkle v.

Janzen v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

61 Cal. App. 4th 109 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1997

. — Petitioner, Stephanie Janzen, seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) dismissing her application for death benefits. … (See Raps v. Raps (1942) 20 Cal.2d 382, 384-385 [ 125 P.2d 826 ]; 2 Witkin, op. cit. supra, Jurisdiction, § 198, pp. 763-764.) Relying on Goodwine v.

Elliott v. Contractors' State License Board

224 Cal. App. 3d 1048 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1990

(Tielsch v. City of Anaheim (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 576, 578 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 740 ]; United Farm Workers v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 347, 350 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 437 ]; but see Ginns v. … Appellant also cites May v. Board of Directors (1949) 34 Cal.2d 125 [ 208 P.2d 661 ], but May does not assist him.

Douglas v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

63 Cal. App. 3d 110 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1976

Portland Cement Co. v. Cal. Unemp. Ins. Appeals Board (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 263, 269-270 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 37 ]; Perales v. Department of Human Resources Dev., supra, 32 Cal.App.3d 332 at pp. 335-336 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 167 ]. … (Italics supplied.) 2 In Boren v.

Lozano v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

130 Cal. App. 3d 749 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1982

.” *754 Employer filed -an appeal with the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (Board) and the Board reversed the ALJ and ruled in favor of employer. … (Maywood Glass Co. v.

Tucker v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

44 Cal. App. 3d 330 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1975

Respondent board has refused to assess a 10 percent penalty for late payment of the $14.02 interest. … (Laucirica v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 681 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 219 ].)

Fick v. Board of Medical Examiners

31 Cal. App. 3d 247 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1973

(Brown v. Gordon, 240 Cal.App.2d 659 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 901 ]; Cadilla v. Board of Medical Examiners, 26 Cal.App.3d 961 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 455 ].) At the time the Board issued its original order placing Dr. … Morrison v. State Board of Education, 1 Cal.3d 214 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 461 P.2d 375 ], Yakov v.