Case law

Delorey v. Board of Public Works

110 Cal. App. 362 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1930

(Ky.) 648; State v. … The ease of State v. Brown, 57 Mo. App. 199 , is in the same general class as that of Hallgren v.

Norton v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

111 Cal. App. 3d 618 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1980

In contrast the Board’s rating is an application of the Supreme Court decisions in State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hutchinson) (1963) 59 Cal.2d 45 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 702 , 377 P.2d 902 ] and Mercier v. … The Wilkinson rule has its origins in the Board’s opinions in Bauer, supra, 34 Cal.Comp.Cases 594 and Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. v.

Nortel Networks Inc. v. Board of Equalization

191 Cal. App. 4th 1259 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 2011

(Mazer v. Stein (1954) 347 U.S. 201, 217 [ 98 L.Ed. 630 , 74 S.Ct. 460 ]; see also Kewanee Oil Co. v. … (Micro-Sparc, Inc. v. *1275 Amtype Corp.

Gardner v. Board of Park Directors

35 Cal. App. 597 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1917

They are as follows: (1) The board of library directors; (2) the board of playground directors; (3) the board of park directors; (4) the civil service board. (Arts. X, XI, XII, and XIII.) … With the exception of the civil service board each of these last-described boards serves without compensation.

Newman v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners

140 Cal. App. 2d 907 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1956

(Atlantic City v. Civil Service Com. of New Jersey, supra; United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane, supra; Corcoran v. City of Los Angeles, supra; Kramer v. Board of Police Comrs., 39 Cal.App. 396, 401 [ 179 P. 216 ].) … (Black v. State Personnel Board, 136 Cal.App.2d 904, 912 [ 289 P.2d 863 ].) Under this rule it is obvious that the courts can be of no assistance to petitioner with respect to the penalty imposed.

Morgan v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

4 Cal. App. 4th 762 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1992

Malcolm Morgan appeals a ruling by the trial court affirming a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (Appeals Board), which denied him unemployment insurance benefits. … (Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 575, 585 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 501 , 685 P.2d 61 ].)

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.

Associated Beverage Co. v. Board of Equalization

224 Cal. App. 3d 192 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1990

Pepper v. Korshak (1966) 36 I11.2d 352 [ 221 N.E.2d 635, 637 ]; Goebel Brewing Co. v. Brown (1943) 306 Mich. 222 [ 10 N.W.2d 835, 837 ].) … (People v. Puritan Ice Co. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 645, 651-652 [ 151 P.2d 1 ]; Good Humor Co. v. State Board of Equal. (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 873, 879 [ 313 P.2d 640 ].)

Cemetery Board v. Telophase Society of America

87 Cal. App. 3d 847 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1978

the board. … Proc., § 1858; Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 10 Cal.3d 222, 236 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 514 P.2d 1224 ]; Kirkwood v.

Zenith Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 2007

We also observe that the Board has, since its decision in the present case, reached the same conclusion as the court in Costco. In Pendergrass v. … v.

Spangler v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

14 Cal. App. 3d 284 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 1971

Co. v. California E. Com. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 321, 328 [ 109 P.2d 935 ]; Chrysler Corp. v. Calif. Unemp. Ins. Appeals Board (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 683, 687 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 843 ].) … Thus if the evidence sustains the department, referee, appeals board and the trial court which reached this conclusion, appellant was not entitled to benefits. (Cf. Garcia v. California Emp. Stab.

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.

Hillmert v. State Board of Equalization

218 Cal. App. 2d 578 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1963

This is an action.against the State Board of Equalization for recovery of money paid, under protest, as taxes on the use of fuel in operating trucks upon the highways. … The constitutionality of similar statutory provisions of the State of New York has been determined in *584 International Harvester Corp. v.

Cooper v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

173 Cal. App. 3d 44 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1985

Cooper (applicant) seeks review of the decision of respondent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) setting aside the finding of the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) that applicant sustained injury to his psyche in … Auto Stores v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

245 Cal. App. 2d 919 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 1966

Department cites also Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, 197 Cal.App.2d 172 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 315 ]; Mercurio v. … Brown, P. J., and Coughlin, J., concurred. 1 "143. Female Employees of On-Sale licensees Soliciting or Accepting Alcoholic Drinks.

Facundo-Guerrero v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

163 Cal. App. 4th 640 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2008

(Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors (1994) 8 Cal.4th 765, 780 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 814 , 884 P.2d 645 ].) … Brown (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 787, 807 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 216 ]; see also FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc. (1993) 508 U.S. 307, 313 [ 124 L.Ed.2d 211 , 113 S.Ct. 2096 ]; Brown v.

Bissell v. Public Employment Relations Board

109 Cal. App. 3d 878 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1980

Although reference may be made to federal labor law precedent in interpreting similar provisions in state labor legislation (Fire Fighters Union v. … Proc., § 1085; see also Mahdavi v. Fair *886 Employment Practices Com. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 326, 339 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 421 ].) The judgment is affirmed. Paras, Acting P.

Terminix Co. v. Contractors' State License Board

84 Cal. App. 2d 167 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1948

(c) ; Harnischfeger Sales Corp. v. Coats, 4 Cal.2d 319, 320-321 [ 48 P.2d 662 ]; Gridley v. Tilson, 202 Cal. 748, 751-752 [ 262 P. 322 ] ; Hall v. Remp, 73 Cal.App. 2d 377, 381 [ 166 P.2d 372 ]; ef., Rest. … Control Board.

Communications Satellite Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

156 Cal. App. 3d 726 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1984

(See Southern California Edison Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1972) 7 Cal.3d 652, 659, fn. 8 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 766 , 498 P.2d 1014 ]; Anaconda Co. v. … (McNeil v. Board of Retirement (1958) 51 Cal.2d 278, 284-285 [ 332 P.2d 281 ]; Pac. Pipeline Const. Co. v. State Board of Equal. (1958) 49 Cal.2d 729, 736 [ 321 P.2d 729 ].)

Lujan v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

175 Cal. App. 3d 212 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 1985

The Board majority concluded that the facts herein were distinguishable from the facts in Thrifty Drug Stores, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. … The Board’s reliance on Van Voorhis v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 81 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 208 ], is misplaced.