Case law

Ulrich v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

50 Cal. App. 3d 643 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 1975

In Ruk v. … Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 438 at page 445 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 421 P.2d 102 ], (Cf. Kerley v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

Hooker v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

36 Cal. App. 3d 698 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1974

Co. v. Ind. Acc. … The board’s reasoning in the above decision is persuasiye and in accord with the conclusions expressed herein. In Chavez v. Workmen’s Comp.

McConville v. State Board of Equalization

85 Cal. App. 3d 156 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 1978

(See Union Oil Co. v. State Bd. of Equal. (1963) 60 Cal.2d 441, 449 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 872 , 386 P.2d 496 ]; Levine v. State Board of Equalization (1956) 142 Cal.App.2d 760, 766 [ 299 P.2d 738 ]; 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. … Assn. v. San Francisco (1931) 211 Cal. 387, 390 [ 295 P. 813 ]; San Francisco v. San Mateo (1941) 17 Cal.2d 814, 817 [ 112 P.2d 595 ]; Seventh Day Adv. Kan. Conf. A. v. Board of Cty.

Clemmens v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

261 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1968

(Western Metal Supply Co. v. Pillsbury, 172 Cal. 407 [ 156 P. 491 , Ann.Cas. 1917E 390] [night watchman found dead from gunshot wound]; Western Grain etc. Co. v. … Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 86 Cal.App.2d 726 [ 195 P.2d 919 ] [an explosion]; Madin v. Industrial Acc. Com., 46 Cal. 2d 90 [ 292 P.2d 892 ] [runaway bulldozer]; Truck Insurance Exchange v. Industrial Acc.

Rinaldi v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

196 Cal. App. 3d 571 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1987

The Board found that the injured worker, respondent Raymond Curry (applicant), was an employee of respondent Robert Brown (Brown), an unlicensed contractor uninsured for workers’ compensation liability, and not an employee … Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Smith v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

123 Cal. App. 3d 763 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 1981

In Eagles Home Assn. v. Indus. Acc. … Shipbuilding Corp. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1946) *775 27 Cal.2d 536, 541-542 [ 165 P.2d 669 ]; Riskin v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1943) 23 Cal.2d 248, 254 [ 144 P.2d 16 ].) The decision of the board is affirmed. Franson, Acting P.

Cuffield v. Board of Dental Examiners

12 Cal. App. 2d 446 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1936

After a hearing, the board found the! accusation to be true and suspended petitioner’s license. … A review of the proceedings of the Board of Dental | Examiners by the superior court resulted in a judgment affirming the action of the board, and it is from such judgment of the superior court that petitioner appeals'. *

Guzman v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

158 Cal. App. 3d 190 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1984

(See Commercial Union As *195 surance Companies v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. … (Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 2d Civ.

Rowen v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

119 Cal. App. 3d 633 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1981

(Chosick v. Reilly (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 334, 338 [ 270 P.2d 547 ]; see also, Griggs v. Board of Trustees (1964) 61 Cal.2d 93, 98 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 194 , 389 P.2d 722 ].) … or any member thereof,’ and is a power which may not be delegated by the appeals board to a referee.”

Savoy Club v. Board of Supervisors

12 Cal. App. 3d 1034 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1970

Webster v. Board of Dental Examiners (1941) 17 C2d 534, 537, 110 P2d 992, 994 .” There is one further deviation in the Silver decision from the California view respecting due process in such matters. … In DeMartini v.

Stover v. Stevens

21 Cal. App. 261 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 1913

(Knox v. Higby, 76 Cal. 264 , [18 Pac. 381]; Henry v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 50 Cal. 176 .) … with the statute of frauds, citing Freeman v.

Brown v. Huntington Beach Union High School District

15 Cal. App. 3d 640 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 1971

Respondents rely largely upon language contained in two cases: Williams v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, 68 Cal.2d 599 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 440 P.2d 497 ] and Frost v. … (Artukovick v. Astendorf, 21 Cal.2d 329, 336 [ 131 P.2d 831 ]; Civ. Code, § 3542.)

Leamon v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

190 Cal. App. 3d 1409 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1987

The Board, relying upon Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. … We have examined the record and conclude that the Board’s findings on these points are supported by substantial evidence. II-V * Disposition The decisions of the Board are affirmed. Evans, Acting P.

Yee Chuck v. Board of Trustees

179 Cal. App. 2d 405 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 1960

Defendant, the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford), claims error in giving and refusing instructions. … The presence on flat land of an old floor of an outhouse with some stones and boards on it would be no warning to anyone that it covered a hole over 30 feet deep and 3 feet square, especially when there were other boards

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.

Ott v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

118 Cal. App. 3d 912 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1981

She principally relies upon the case of Russell v. … (See also Herrera v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

Morales v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

186 Cal. App. 3d 283 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 1986

Fund v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. … We note that respondents do not contend that applicant’s work was required pursuant to an order of the board of supervisors. In Pruitt v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

Amaro v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

65 Cal. App. 3d 715 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 1977

De Somov was followed by Boren v. … Portland Cement Co. v. Cal. Unemp. Ins.

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.