Case law

Derrick v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

159 Cal. App. 3d 451 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 1984

. 1 We agree and direct the Board to modify the award accordingly. … Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 133 , 138-139 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 410 ]; see generally 1 Herlick, Cal. Workers’ Compensation Law (3d ed. 1984) § 4.18 et seq., p. 88 et seq.; Cal.

Acuff v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

208 Cal. App. 3d 1038 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1989

(Ruberoid Co. v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Board (1963) 59 Cal.2d 73, 77 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. *1045 878 , 378 P.2d 102 ]; Matson Terminals, Inc. v. Cal. Emp. Com. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 695, 707 [ 151 P.2d 202 ].) … Not only does this argument run contrary to the Board’s resolution of the facts (see Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Ins.

McMullan v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board

168 Cal. App. 3d 960 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1985

(Board) of a “removal permit.” … Rent Control Board (1984) 35 Cal.3d 858, 868 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 593 , 679 P.2d 27 ]; Birkenfeld v.

Sutter Packing Co. v. State Board of Equalization

139 Cal. App. 2d 889 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1956

(State Board of Equalization v. Boteler, 131 F.2d 386 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Goggin, 191 F.2d 726 .) … Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1943), 21 Cal.2d 524 [ 133 P.2d 400 ], sale of used rolling stock; Bigsby v.

Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization

39 Cal. App. 3d 765 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1974

In Hospital Service of California v. … (Santa Fe Transp. v. State Board of Equal., 51 Cal.2d 531, 539 [ 334 P.2d 907 ]; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 680 [ 315 P.2d 394 ].)

California Department of Corrections v. State Personnel Board

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 3, 2004

CDC cites Nakamura v. … (Kim v.

Butte View Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

95 Cal. App. 3d 961 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1979

Y. v. N.L.R.B. (2d Cir. 1977) 555 F.2d 304 , 305. (In accord see National Labor Relations Board v. Carpenters Union, Local 180 (9th Cir. 1970) 433 F.2d 934, 935 ; N.L.R.B. v. … Brown & Root, Inc. (8th Cir. 1963) 311 F.2d 447, 452 .)) We have reviewed the formula used by the board. Charles Nakatani, one of the owners of petitioner, testified at the hearing.

Bates v. State Board of Equalization

275 Cal. App. 2d 388 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1969

(Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 25 Cal.2d 918, 921 [156 P.2d 1] ; Michels v. Watson, 229 Cal.App.2d 404, 409 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 464 ].) … (County of Sacramento v. Hickman, supra, 66 Cal.2d at p. 848 .)

Zavala v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LELAND STANFORD

16 Cal. App. 4th 1755 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1993

(Hill v. Nerle (1916) 29 Cal.App. 473, 475 [ 156 P. 981 ]; Ware v. Stafford (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 232, 237 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 153 ]; see also McCullough v. Clark (1871) 41 Cal. 298, 302 .) … In Jutzi v.

County of Sacramento v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 290 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 2000

(Bemer v. … Burrows v.

Jackson & Perkins Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

77 Cal. App. 3d 830 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1978

In United Farm Workers v. … We therefore suggest that the Board reconsider the unlimited access provision. The petition is ordered dismissed. Brown (G. A.), P. J„ and Hopper, J., concurred.

Hemphill v. Contractors' State License Board

167 Cal. App. 2d 340 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1959

Since November 1953 petitioner has been licensed by the board as a general building contractor. … (Manning v. Watson, 108 Cal.App.2d 705, 712 [ 239 P.2d 688 ].)

Taylor v. Board of Police Commissioners

36 Cal. App. 815 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1918

This ease is identical in all respects with that of MacPhee v. Board of Police Commissioners et al., ante, p. 308, [ 171 Pac. 1086 ], and upon the authority of that ease the judgment herein is affirmed. Lennon, P.

Rice v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

89 Cal. App. 3d 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1979

State Board of Education, supra, 1 Cal.3d 214, at pp. 225, 229 ; Board of Education v. … Board of Trustees (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 681, 688 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 192 ]; Board of Trustees v.

Sullivan v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

15 Cal. App. 3d 959 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 1971

Sullivan’s claim, based on new and further disability, is timely and the Board’s decision should be annulled. … (Standard Rectifier Corp. v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 65 Cal.2d 287, 290 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 100 , 419 P.2d 164 ].) The Board found Sullivan’s claim untimely on grounds he received no benefits from Riverview.

Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 509 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 2000

(CCH) ¶ 401-797, p. 25,755; see, e.g., Brown Group Retail, Inc. v. … Although the courts “bear ultimate responsibility for construing the statute, we accord great respect to the Board’s interpretation.” (City of Gilroy v.

Collins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

8 Cal. App. 3d 618 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1970

We note, however, the recent decision of our Supreme Court in LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. App. … (Smith v. Workmen's Comp. *623 App. Bd. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 588, 592 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 455 P.2d 822 ); Lundberg v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 436, 440 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 445 P.2d 300 ]; Zemke v.

Stewart v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

264 Cal. App. 2d 947 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 15, 1968

(Mayfield v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 16 Cal.App.2d 611 [ 61 P.2d 83 ]; Kast v. Miller & Lux, 159 Cal. 723 [ 115 P. 932 ].) … In Schatter v. Industrial Acc. Com., 11 Cal.2d 46 , the court said (pp. 50-51 [ 77 P.2d 836 ]) as quoted in Van Horn v. Industrial Acc.

Inyo Development Co. v. Board of Supervisors

15 Cal. App. 387 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1911

Thereupon, the board, after considering the evidence, appointed three viewers, one *389 of whom was a surveyor, to view and survey the proposed new road and to submit to the board an estimate of the cost of the opening thereof … Plaintiff thereupon sought by a writ of review to have the action of said board annulled, claiming that the record disclosed a want of jurisdiction in said board to make its orders opening said road and awarding said damages

Board of Supervisors v. De Lisle

160 Cal. App. 2d 599 · California Court of Appeal · May 19, 1958

In an action by the taxpayer, the order of the board was held to be in excess of jurisdiction and void. The decisions relied upon by appellant do not alter that rule. In one (Buswell v. … (Buswell v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 116 Cal. 351, 354 .) Appellant board cannot assert that respondent’s act in conforming to that plan is invalid. No claim of an aggrieved taxpayer is before us.