Case law

Selden v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

176 Cal. App. 3d 877 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1986

In its accompanying opinion the Board majority concluded that applicant’s reliance on Bland v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … Royster v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 412, 414 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 210 ].) Bland v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

Stewart v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance

80 Cal. App. 3d 172 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1978

Board of Dental Examiners (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 283 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 694 ]; see also Chapman v. Federal Power Comm’n. (1953) 345 U.S. 153 [ 97 L.Ed. 918 , 73 S.Ct. 609 ].) … (Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 326, 331 [ 308 P.2d 924 ].) *184 Disposition The judgment (order granting the motion for a new trial) is affirmed.

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 ].)

Strong v. Sutter County Board of Supervisors

188 Cal. App. 4th 482 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 2010

Dissatisfied with the refusal of the Sutter County Board of Supervisors (the board) to employ independent legal counsel to represent him in a dispute with the board, Sutter County Assessor Michael V. … (Harustak v.

Humburg v. Board of Police & Fire Commissioners

27 Cal. App. 6 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1915

We have, then, exactly the condition presented by Black v. Board of Police Commissioners, 17 Cal. App. 310 , [ 119 Pac. 674 ], Indeed, Mr. … The other cases cited by respondents to this point are: Barendt v. McCarthy, 160 Cal. 685 , [ 118 Pac. 228 ] ; Welch v. Ware, 161 Cal. 646 , [ 119 Pac. 1080 ] ; Ross v. Board of Education, 18 Cal.

Ogden v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

153 Cal. App. 3d 786 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 1984

Opinion BROWN (G. A.), P. J. … In Urlwin v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 466 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 758 ] the Board’s decision incorporated by reference parts of respondent’s petition for reconsideration.

Ettinger v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance

135 Cal. App. 3d 853 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 1982

Rptr. 601 MARVIN MORRIS ETTINGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF MEDICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE, Defendant and Respondent. Docket No. 63045. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five. … The court held that "[t]he proceeding before the Board [was] a civil one, and hence the burden of proof requires only a preponderance of evidence." ( Pereyda v. State Personnel Board, supra, 15 Cal. App.3d at p. 52.)

Mantel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

37 Cal. App. 3d 739 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1974

In Zozaya v. Workmen’s Comp. … The appeals board having granted reconsideration must make the order, decision or award itself. (See Cal. Shipbuilding Corp. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1946) 27 Cal.2d 536, 543-544 [ 165 P.2d 669 ]; and Argonaut Ins. Co. v.

Board of Trustees v. Superior Court

274 Cal. App. 2d 377 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 1969

(See Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 772 , 422 P.2d 332 ]; Elmore v. Superior Court (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 635, 638 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 307 ].) Laubscher v. … (See Whitfield v. Superior Court (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 81, 86 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 505 ], hear. den.)

Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 53 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 2003

Disposition The order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board is affirmed. Costs are awarded to the California Insurance Guarantee Association. Ardaiz, P. J., and Harris, J., concurred. … Brown, L, was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. 1 All further statutory references are to the Insurance Code unless otherwise indicated.

Palmer v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

192 Cal. App. 3d 1241 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1987

The Board noted that in Smith v. … The Board noted that in Van Voorhis v. Workmen's Comp.

Reimel v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

256 Cal. App. 2d 158 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1967

(Select Base Materials v. Board of Equalization, 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ]; Brown v. Cranston, 214 Cal.App.2d 660, 672 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 725 ].) … (County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie, 19 Cal.2d 634, 639 [ 122 P.2d 526 ] ; In re Kernan, 242 Cal.App.2d 488, 491 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 515 ] ; Brown v.

Terlau v. Board of Police Commissioners

126 Cal. App. 2d 116 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1954

Teed v. State Board of Equalization

12 Cal. App. 2d 162 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1936

The petition alleged that on the 16th day ¡of August, 1935, the petitioner received from the State Board of Equalization the following letter dated July 1, 1935: "This office is in receipt of instructions from Sacramento … The letter does not constitute an order or decision of the board or any other official act of the respondent board, and it makes no direct application to the petitioner. It contains no threat of any kind.

Young v. State Board of Control

93 Cal. App. 3d 637 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 1979

(See Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Reimel (1968) 69 Cal.2d 172, 175 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 407 , 444 P.2d 79 ]; Mahdavi v. … Our Supreme Court in Los Angeles v.

Limited Stores, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 191 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 2007

Franchise Tax Board (July 28, 2005, A102915) [nonpub. opn.]) and reconsider the cause in light of Microsoft Corp. v. … Consultants, Inc. v.

Smith v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance

202 Cal. App. 3d 316 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 1988

Does this authority transform the Board’s proceedings into an adjudication? (See Hannah v. Larche, supra, 363 U.S. at pp. 440-441 [4 L.Ed.2d at. pp. 1320-1321]; Stanson v. … Although the concept of liberty is “broad indeed,” (Board of Regents v.

Honeywell, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

48 Cal. App. 3d 907 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 1975

Board did not create the law of fixtures. The law of fixtures was recognized in California long prior to the enactment of the Sales Tax Act (Merritt v. … We hold that rule II is a proper exercise of Board’s rule-making authority. Gen. Elec. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra; Coast Elevator Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra.

Trevino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

207 Cal. App. 3d 1012 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 3, 1989

The WCJ noted the Board’s decision in Gray v. Moss Lighting (1978) 43 Cal.Comp.Cases 586 (in bank). … The Board unanimously adopted the reasons stated in the WCJ’s report and denied reconsideration. The appellate court in Rodgers v. Workers’ Comp.

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Board of Commissioners

276 Cal. App. 2d 221 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1969

See Hines v. … Brown, The Open Economy; Mr. Justice Frankfurter and The Position of the Judiciary, (1957) 219, 220, reprinted in Selected Essays on Constitutional Law (1963), p. 373.)