Case law

Cambell Industries v. State Board of Equalization

167 Cal. App. 3d 863 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 1985

The ultimate resolution, however, of whether the Board has correctly interpreted its own regulations rests with the courts. (Ontario Community Foundations, Inc. v. … In resolving the issue, we preliminarily note that the Board’s interpretation of its own regulations finds support in Union Oil Co. v. State Bd. of Equal. (1963) 60 Cal.2d 441 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 872 , 386 P.2d 496 ].

De La Torre v. California Horse Racing Board

7 Cal. App. 5th 1058 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 2017

(Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 10-12 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 960 P.2d 1031 ] (Yamaha).) … (Spanish Speaking Citizens’ Foundation, Inc. v. Low (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1214 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 ].) 2.

California Teachers Assn. v. Board of Education

129 Cal. App. 3d 826 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1982

(Fry v. Board of Education (1941) 17 Cal.2d 753 [ 112 P.2d 229 ]; Rible v. Hughes (1944) 24 Cal.2d 437 [ 150 P.2d 455 , 154 A.L.R. 137 ]; Lawe v. … El Monte School Dist. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 20 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 554 ]; Sayre v. Board of Trustees (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 488 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 355 ].)

Cerberonics, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

152 Cal. App. 3d 172 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1984

As the Supreme Court stated in Mason v. Lyl Productions (1968) 69 Cal.2d 79 , at page 84 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 769 , 443 P.2d 193 ], citing May v. … Brown (Gerald), P.

United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria v. Brown

4 Cal. App. 5th 36 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 2016

No. 34-2013- Plaintiff and Appellant, 80001412CUWMGDS ) v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Governor, etc., Defendant and Respondent. … We considered and rejected the Auburn Tribe’s claim that the Governor is a public agency in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Brown (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1416.

Stop Loss Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Brown & Toland Medical Group

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 609 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2006

(Stop Loss), filed a cross-complaint for comparative indemnity against Brown Toland Medical Group (BTMG). … (See, e.g., Quelimane Co. v.

Kirby v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

267 Cal. App. 2d 895 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1968

(Dethlefsen v. State Board of Equalization, 145 Cal.App.2d 561 [ 303 P.2d 7 ].) … (Farah v. Alcoholic Beverage etc. Appeals Board, 159 Cal.App.2d 335, 338 [ 324 P.2d 98 ]; Jacques, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 155 Cal.App.2d 448, 462-463 [ 318 P.2d 6 ]; People v.

Board of Dental Examiners v. Superior Court

55 Cal. App. 3d 811 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1976

It was not the function of the superior court to inquire into the evidence examined and relied upon by the board members or to inquire into the reasoning processes underlying their decision. (City of Fairfield v. … The board’s proceedings were supported by a presumption of regularity. (Board of Administration v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.App.3d 314, 320 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 530 ]; Campbell v.

State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court

111 Cal. App. 3d 568 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 1980

(See, Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 293 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ].) … Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692, 697 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 165 ].)

MacHado v. State Water Resources Control Board

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 116 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 2001

(Mohilef v. … (United States v. Flores, supra, 753 F.2d at p. 1503 .)

Household Finance Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

230 Cal. App. 2d 926 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1964

But that view has been flatly rejected (Superior Oil Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 60 Cal.2d 406, 416 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 545 , 386 P.2d 33 ] ; Honolulu Oil Corp. v. … McColgan, 30 Cal.2d 472, 481 [ 183 P.2d 16 ]) and use of an allocation formula is required (Superior Oil Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, supra, at p. 416-417).

Richfield Oil Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

169 Cal. App. 2d 331 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1959

An appeal was then taken by Richfield to the State Board of Equalization, which affirmed the commissioner’s action in denying Richfield’s claim for refund. … In the case of Madden, Executor v.

County of Riverside v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

10 Cal. App. 5th 119 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2017

Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. … (Middletown Rancheria v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1343 [“The Appeals Board does not possess subject matter jurisdiction over Tribe as a matter of law.”].)

Intellidata Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

139 Cal. App. 3d 594 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1983

In People v. … Finally, in Simplicity Pattern Co. v.

Gaehwiler v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Board

141 Cal. App. 3d 1041 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1983

The judgment had the effect of affirming a decision against appellant by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (hereafter, Board). We affirm. … The argument relies on a four-prong defense described in Newbery Electric Corp. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 641, 649 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 734 ].

Ballesteros v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

234 Cal. App. 2d 694 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1965

Appeals Board, 197 Cal.App.2d 172, 180 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 315 ] ; and Marcucci v. … (See also Givens v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, supra, p. 534; Swegle v. State Board of Equalization, 125 Cal.App.2d 432, 438 [ 270 P.2d 518 ].)

Lee v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners

221 Cal. App. 3d 103 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1990

(Wiles v. State Personnel Board, supra, 19 Cal.2d at p. 348 .) … The Board acted within its authority and committed no abuse of discretion in acting upon Lee’s case in this manner. (See Montana Power Co. v.

Postural Therapeutics v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

179 Cal. App. 3d 551 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1986

The only evidence and reason the board gave to support its conclusion was the adverse inference it was required to draw. This is insufficient. (See Goytia v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … (Villa v. Workers’ Comp. App.

Palace Hotel Co. v. Board of Supervisors

58 Cal. App. 742 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 1922

This is an original proceeding in mandamus to require the respondents, as members of the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, to take the appropriate proceedings for the levy and collection of a tax

Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

197 Cal. App. 2d 172 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1961

In Mack v. … In connection with that statement, the board cites Stoumen v. Reilly, 37 Cal.2d 713 [ 234 P.2d 969 ] and Kershaw v.