Case law

McGinty v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board.

266 Cal. App. 2d 280 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1968

Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com., 89 Cal.App. 197 [ 264 P. 514 ]; London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 190 Cal. 587 [ 213 P. 977 ]; Sun Indem. Co. v. Industrial Acc. … The board erred in denying compensation. The order of the board is annulled. Kerrigan, J., and Tamura, J., concurred.

Pomona Cemetery Assn. v. Board of Supervisors

49 Cal. App. 2d 626 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1942

(Hollywood Cemetery Assn. v. Powell, 210 Cal. 121 [ 291 Pac. 397 , 71 A. L. R. 310].) … Assn. v. San Francisco, 211 Cal. 387 [ 295 Pac. 813 ]) may be eliminated from consideration in this case.

Barrett v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

190 Cal. App. 2d 854 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1961

(Bradshaw v. California Emp. Stab. Com., 46 Cal.2d 608 [ 297 P.2d 970 ] ; Jones v. California Emp. Stab. Com., 120 Cal.App.2d 770 [ 262 P.2d 91 ].) … As stated in Jones v. California Emp. Stab.

Hupp v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

39 Cal. App. 4th 84 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1995

Board v. Brashear Freight Lines (8th Cir. 1942) 127 F.2d 198 . … (Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v.

Newman v. City of Oakland Retirement Board

80 Cal. App. 3d 450 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1978

(Dryden v. Board of Pension Commrs., supra, 6 Cal.2d 575, 579 [ 59 P.2d 104 ].)” (Dickey v. Retirement Board (1976) 16 Cal.3d 745, 748-749 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 289 , 548 P.2d 689 ]; see also Miller v. … (Kern v. City of Long Beach, supra, 29 Cal.2d 848, 854-855 ; see also Wallace v. City of Fresno (1954) 42 Cal.2d 180 , 183 . . .; Packer v. Board of Retirement (1950) 35 Cal.2d 212 , 214 . . . .)

Anne B. v. State Board of Control

165 Cal. App. 3d 279 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1984

(See, e.g., McComb v. Superior Court (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 89, 96-97 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; People v. Crutcher (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 750, 754 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 904 ].) … (Wilson v. Sharp (1954) 42 Cal.2d 675, 678-679 [ 268 P.2d 1062 ].)

California Teachers Assn. v. Board of Trustees

70 Cal. App. 3d 431 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1977

Furthermore, this legislation . .. must be interpreted in light of the indicated intent of the Legislature, as interpreted by the courts in cases such as Nelson v. Dean, 27 Cal. 2d 873 (1946), and Hatch v. … (Cummins v. Parker Seal Company, 516 F.2d 544 .) This it has done. Mrs. Waldman was in no way hampered from or disciplined for attending the religious observance.

Atari, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

170 Cal. App. 3d 665 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1985

Board renewed its objection at the close of trial; also, over Board’s objection, the trial court took judicial notice of the recommendation prepared by Board for purposes of the petition for redetermination, which was prepared … (Duffy v. State Bd. of Equalization (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1163 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 886 ].)

Hargens v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

263 Cal. App. 2d 601 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1968

Cass County (1945) 326 U.S. 207, 215 [90 L.Ed. 6, 13, 66 S.Ct. 61]; see Board of Education v. Watson, supra, 63 Cal.2d 829, 833 .) ” 3 *607 As stated in Morey v. … (Board of Education v. Watson, 63 Cal.2d 829, 833 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 481 , 409 P.2d 481 ].)

State Board of Equalization v. Carleton

223 Cal. App. 3d 1607 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1990

Bank v. Olsen (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 234, 241 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 4 ].) … (See, e.g, Wexler v. McLucas (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d Supp. 9, 14 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Wolfer (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 63, 68 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 654 ]; Wise v.

Peck v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

267 Cal. App. 2d 448 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1968

Code, § 5908.5; Evans v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [68 Cal.Rptr. *451 825, 441 P.2d 633 ].) ” (Granado v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 69 Cal.2d 399, 406 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 678 , 445 P.2d 294 ].) … (See e.g., Berry v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 786 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 68 , 441 P.2d 908 ]; Zemke v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 794 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 88 , 441 P.2d 928 ] ; Granado v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

Cobb v. Pasadena City Board of Education

134 Cal. App. 2d 93 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1955

(San Francisco v. Boyd, 17 Cal.2d 606, 620 [ 110 P.2d 1036 ]; Miller v. Boyle, 43 CaLApp. 39, 44 [ 184 P. 421 ].) … Such employment, therefore, lies within the discretion of the board, with which courts will not interfere in the absence of fraud or abuse of discretion in the exercise of its legislative powers. (Ransom v.

Scott Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

139 Cal. App. 3d 98 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 1983

It is undisputed that with those amendments, the Legislature sought to ameliorate “the procedural morass faced by the board and the parties in multiple defendant cases.” (Harrison v. Workmen’s Comp. … The board is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to make its own credibility determination. (Cansdale v. Board of Administration (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 656, 664 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 880 ].)

Aubry v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

56 Cal. App. 4th 1032 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1997

(Milligan v. City of Laguna Beach (1983) 34 Cal.3d 829, 831 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 38 , 670 P.2d 1121 ].) … UEF contends that Yant v. Snyder Dickerson (1982) 47 Cal.Comp.Cases 254, establishes that the employer must be served with a copy of the application for adjudication of claim. We do not read Yant so broadly.

Brammer v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

108 Cal. App. 3d 806 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1980

In Franklin v. Workers’ Comp. … Brown (G. A.), P. J., and Zenovich, J., concurred.

HELENE CURTIS, INC. v. Board

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 658 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2004

Cigarette Concessions v. … (See FlightSafety Internat., Inc. v.

Hall v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

179 Cal. App. 3d 850 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1986

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 750 ].) Respondent Board’s reliance upon various cases such as Krueger v. … the parties will understand what new evidence or arguments they should present to the board {LeVesque v.

Downing v. California State Board of Pharmacy

85 Cal. App. 2d 30 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 1948

This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction ordering the California State Board of Pharmacy, the State Board of Public Health, the Director of Public Health, the Board of Medical Examiners of the State of California, … In Neslen v.

Schoenfeld v. Board of Parole Hearings

191 Cal. App. 4th 1324 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2010

(People v. Schoenfeld, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 674-676 & fn. 3.) … We must presume, of course, that the Legislature was well aware of the statutory provisions recognizing, and the extensive case law addressing, the Board’s “rescission” power. (See Alatriste v.

Donia v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

167 Cal. App. 3d 588 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1985

(People v. Medina, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 491 .) … Before this court, the board relies on Board of Trustees v. Munro (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 440 [ 329 P.2d 765 ], stressing the perceived similarities between the instant matter and that case.