Case law

King v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

25 Cal. App. 3d 199 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1972

(Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners (1948) 32 Cal.2d 301, 308 [ 196 P.2d 20 ]; Deering, op. cit. supra, § 15.25, pp. 280-281.) … A similar contention was made in Sherbert v.

Fisk v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

20 Cal. App. 4th 1078 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1993

In Granado v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … Recently, in Rouseyrol v. Workers’ Comp.

Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

197 Cal. App. 2d 182 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1961

In Meade v. … He said that those witnesses were: Officer Adams of the Highway Patrol; Agents Churchill, Suss-man, Brown, and Bachrach of the department, and the four minors.

Urlwin v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

126 Cal. App. 3d 466 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1981

LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … Respondent board must give due consideration to petitioner’s actual earnings from other employment (§ 4453, subd. (d)), but it failed to do so. (See Goytia v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

Davenport v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

24 Cal. App. 4th 1695 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1994

(See Nadler v. California Veterans Board (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 707, 718 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 546 ].) Other Issues Davenport also raises several procedural issues which lack merit. … (Palm v. Schilling (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 63, 67 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; City of Coachella v.

Causey v. Board of Pension Commissioners

152 Cal. App. 3d 484 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1984

(Dakins v. Board of Pension Commissioners, supra, 134 Cal.App.3d at p. 385 .) … (Dakins v. Board of Pension Commissioners, supra, 134 Cal.App.3d at p. 386 .) Further, the Dakins court determined that, “the parties to the WCAB proceedings and the Board proceedings were identical.

Jacques, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

155 Cal. App. 2d 448 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1957

(Covert v. State Board of Equalization, 29 Cal.2d 125,131-132 [ 173 P.2d 545 ] ; Moore v. State Board of Equalization, 76 Cal.App.2d 758, 762-763 [ 174 P.2d 323 ]. See also Boren v. … (Moore v. State Board of Equalization (1946), 76 Cal.App.2d 758 [ 174 P.2d 323 ], and Hansen v. State Board of Equalization (1941), 43 Cal.App.2d 176 [ 110 P.2d 453 ].)

Jaramillo v. State Board for Geologists & Geophysicists

39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 170 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2006

The court then quoted O’Hagen v. … the Board’s findings are not supported by the evidence, and that the Board’s decision was insufficient to comply with the mandate in Topanga Assn, for a Scenic Community v.

Ghent v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

183 Cal. App. 3d 1167 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1986

The Case Law Analysis (4) Ghent relies heavily upon County of Los Angeles v. Workers’ Comp. … (Johnson v. Banducci (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 254, 262 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 764 ].)

County of Marin v. Assessment Appeals Board

64 Cal. App. 3d 319 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1976

The parties to the lawsuit are appellants County of Marin (County) and its assessor, defendant assessment appeals board (Board), and real parties in interest Anthony and Mary Silveira (hereafter taxpayers). … Barnett, Dix Box Co. v.

Mole-Richardson Co. v. Franchise Tax Board

220 Cal. App. 3d 889 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1990

Woolworth Co. v. … While we agree that the board is an administrative body and has no judicial power (Carson Estate Company v.

Raisin Proration Zone No. 1 v. Brown

57 Cal. App. 2d 1017 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1943

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Parker, Director of Agriculture, et al. v. Brown, - U.S. - [ 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. -], is controlling upon this appeal.

Raisin Proration Zone No. 1 v. Brown

57 Cal. App. 2d 1018 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1943

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Parker, Director of Agriculture, et al. v. Brown, -U.S. - [ 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. -], is controlling upon this appeal.

Freund v. Oakland Board of Education

28 Cal. App. 2d 246 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1938

The defendants named in the complaint were the Oakland Board of Education, Oakland High School District of Alameda County, Oakland Junior High School District of Alameda County, and H. N. Massey. … She cites and relies on Bellman, Minor, v. San Francisco High School Dist., 11 Cal. *250 (2d) 576 [ 81 Pac. (2d) 894 ], Spore v. Washington, 96 Cal. App. 345 [ 274 Pac. 407 ], Ahern v.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

26 Cal. App. 4th 1789 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 1994

In Dupps Co. v. … In Strickland v.

Soto v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

46 Cal. App. 4th 1356 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1996

We conclude that Rhiner v. Workers’ Comp. … In Rhiner v. Workers’ Comp.

Faulder v. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 251 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2006

(Stephens, at p. 913; see also Curle v. … If the current challenger receives a majority of the votes, she will be elected; if not, then the Board of Supervisors will select a candidate for the position to serve the term provided by law.”

Excelsior College v. Board of Registered Nursing

39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 618 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2006

(Mann v. Board of Medical Examiners (1947) 31 Cal.2d 30, 41 [ 187 P.2d 1 ].) … v.

Einzig v. Board of Police Commissioners

138 Cal. App. 664 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1934

A game similar to that played under the permit here mentioned was held to be gambling under an Oregon statute almost identical with section 330 of our Penal Code (State v. … (Horner v. United States, 147 U. S. 449 [13 Sup. Ct. 409, 37 L. Ed. 237 ].)

Sparks v. Kern County Board of Supervisors

173 Cal. App. 4th 794 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2009

Sparks wrote to the Board on March 27, 2006. … Rather, Sparks was urging the Board to deny the County’s request for future litigation costs and fees.