Case law

Great Western Power Co. v. Board of Supervisors

21 Cal. App. 146 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1913

It is sufficient to refer to the following decisions of our supreme court: Whitney v. Board of Delegates, 14 Cal. 479 ; Levee District No. 9 v. Farmer, 101 Cal. 178 , [23 L. R. A. 388, 35 Pac. 569 ] ; Stumpf v. … In Stumpf v. Board of Supervisors, 131 Cal. 364 , [ 82 Am. St.

Du Four v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

49 Cal. App. 3d 863 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 1975

, as was successfully done in Gibson v. … A requirement that an applicant proceed through the administrative machinery in face of an established board interpretation of a statute would have been an exercise in futility. Neither does Fermin v.

City of Oakland v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 873 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2002

(Id. at p. 1184; see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1237 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 865 ].) IV. Citing two Board decisions (Larch v. … Thus, we agree with the Board’s importation of the objective good faith standard from Cotran . The Board had earlier attempted to define good faith in its decision in Larch v.

Chemed Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

192 Cal. App. 3d 967 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1987

Finally, Chemed cites Ontario Community Foundations, Inc. v. … (Santa Fe Transp. v. State Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 531, 539 [ 334 P.2d 907 ].)

People v. Brown CA3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 2025

(People v. Brown (Mar. 6, 2001, C032002) [nonpub. opn.].) … Citing People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575, 580 (Mitchell), the trial court noted that “[s]worn statements made by a defendant to the parole board are admissible in Section 1172.6 petitions.”

Applied Materials v. Workers' Comp Appeals Board

California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 2021

ADJ1351389) Petitioners, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and D.C., Respondents. … ADJ7168611, Petitioner, ADJ7183596) v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and D.C., Respondents.

Universal Engineering Co. v. State Board of Equalization

118 Cal. App. 2d 36 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1953

McColgan, 34 Cal.2d 731, 739 [ 215 P.2d 4 ]; Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 25 Cal.2d 918 [ 156 P.2d 1 ], and cases cited therein. … State Board of Equalization, supra.

United Teachers of Ukiah v. Board of Education

201 Cal. App. 3d 632 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1988

Similarly, Mayer v. Board of Trustees, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d 476 , provides no support for appellants’ hiring practices. … We of course recognize that a board may impose a uniform salary cut on all teachers within a particular rating. (Aebli, supra, 62 Cal.App.2d at p. 758 .) Brown v.

Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency

171 Cal. App. 3d 95 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1985

Board of Education (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 875, 881 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 568 ]; see also Joiner v. City of Sebastopol, supra, 125 Cal.App.3d at p. 805.) … The attorney-client privilege in the context of the Brown Act must be “strictly construed.” (Sacramento Newspaper Guild v.

Diamond National Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

49 Cal. App. 3d 778 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1975

The board disallowed both refunds. Diamond agreed that any refund returned to it would be refunded to Crocker pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 6054.5 and Decorative Carpets, Inc. v. … (Italics supplied.) 10 United States v. State Board of Equalization (Civ. No. 72-2568-R). 11 In Meyer Const. Co. v.

Portola Development Co. v. Board of Trustees

203 Cal. App. 2d 129 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 1962

(Berverdor, Inc. v. Salyer Farms, 97 Cal.App.2d 459 [ 218 P.2d 138 ] ; Petroleum Midway Co., Ltd. v. Moynier, 205 Cal. 733 [ 272 P. 740 ] ; Jones-McLaughlin, Inc. v. Kelly, 100 Cal. App. 315 [ 279 P. 1076 ].) … (Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 11 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ] ; Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Mfg. Co., 20 Cal.2d 751, 772-773 [ 128 P.2d 665 ]; Greenberg v.

Turner Gas Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

47 Cal. App. 3d 286 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1975

Dist. v. Landier Inv. … (See Montez v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.App.3d 343, 351 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 736 ]; cf. Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 8, § 10856.) The order denying reconsideration is affirmed. Brown (G. A.), P. J., and Franson, J., concurred.

Governing Board of Nicasio School District v. Brennan

18 Cal. App. 3d 396 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1971

Appellate has cited Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, 68 Cal. 2d 67 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 435 P.2d 553 ]. … (See Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 [ 20 L.Ed. 2d 811 , 88 S.Ct 1731 ].)

City of Commerce v. State Board of Equalization

205 Cal. App. 2d 387 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1962

The State Board and the County take the position that the City did not contract with the State Board until February 15, 1960, and in any event, under the provisions of article V, paragraph B, of the sales tax contract, the … (State Board of Education v. Levit, 52 Cal.2d 441, 458 [ 343 P.2d 8 ].)

Fair Political Practices Commission v. State Personnel Board

77 Cal. App. 3d 52 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 1978

(See Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 638 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 981 ].) … (See People v. Western Air Lines, Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 621, 635 [ 268 P.2d 723 ].) The Commission must accept classifications and salaries for its employees as they are established by the Board.

Smith v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 700 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 2002

After a six-month trial, report back to the Board of Supervisors with the results of the pilot project.” … (See also Estes v.

California Teachers Assn. v. Board of Trustees

132 Cal. App. 3d 32 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1982

In Degener v. … (Rutherford v. Board of Trustees, supra, 64 Cal.App.3d 167, 178-179 .)

Jim Beam Brands Co. v. Franchise Tax Board

34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 874 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 2005

(Jim Beam) appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) in a tax refund action. … (Hoechst Celanese Corp. v.

Nissan Motor Corp. v. New Motor Vehicle Board

153 Cal. App. 3d 109 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1984

In arriving at our decision we are greatly aided by American Motors Sales Corp. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 594 ], and Chevrolet Motor Division v. … Appellants’ last contention that in light of Andrews v.

Henry H. v. Board of Pension Commissioners

149 Cal. App. 3d 965 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1983

State Board of Edu *976 cation (1969) 1 Cal.3d 214 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 461 P.2d 375 ] [school teacher]; Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 68 Cal.2d 67 [medical doctor]; Hallinan v. … (See, e.g., Morrison v. State Board of Education, supra, 1 Cal.3d at pp. 220-229; Board of Education v. Jack M. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 691, 696-697 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 700 , 566 P.2d 602 ], and cases cited at p. 702, fn. 6.)