Case law

Floystrup v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board

219 Cal. App. 3d 1309 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1990

Rent Stabilization Board v. … (McWilliams v. Holton (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 447, 451 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 574 ].) As succinctly stated in Harm v.

Farmer Brothers Coffee v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 23 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 2005

(Board). 3 (See § 5950; Safeway Stores, Inc v. … A. v.

Kolter v. Commission on Professional Competence of Los Angeles Unified School District

170 Cal. App. 4th 1346 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 2009

v. … Quoting Cleveland Board of Education v.

Zenith Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

124 Cal. App. 3d 176 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1981

Co. v. Ind. Acc. … Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board, 258 ACA 271, Miller vs. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board, 258 ACA 589, and Fruehauf Corporation vs. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board, 252 ACA 600, ...” (44A West’s Ann. Lab.

City of Stockton v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 474 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2006

In Kidwell v. Workers’ Comp. … In Taylor v. Workers’ Comp.

Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

224 Cal. App. 2d 468 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1964

As to Counts V and VI against one bar, and Count V against the other, the investigating agents did not directly observe retention of picks by the female employees. … State Board of Equalization, 137 Cal.App.2d 672, 680 [ 290 P.2d 914 ]).

California Chamber of Commerce v. State Air Resources Board

10 Cal. App. 5th 604 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 2017

(People v. … “Skip” Brown; Joanne Browne; Robert McClernon; and the National Tax Limitation Committee.

Tetra Pak, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

234 Cal. App. 3d 1751 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 1991

The Board attacks these factual determinations. (See Magnecomp Corp. v. Athene Co. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 526, 536 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 278 ] [existence of agency]; Siva v. … Phillips v.

Letsch v. Northern San Diego County Hospital District

246 Cal. App. 2d 673 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1966

On the Brown Act violation issue, the court found that the board held a regular meeting on February 11, 1963, during which it declared itself in executive session; the subject of discussion at the executive session pertained … The action of the board in executive session did not violate the Brown Act as it came within the closed session exception provided by Government Code section 54957. The judgments are affirmed. Brown, P.

City of Fresno v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

163 Cal. App. 3d 467 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1985

The court will not interfere with the board’s factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence or by reasonable inferences drawn from the testimony adduced. (Morrison v. Industrial Acc. … (See, e.g., Alford v.

Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board v. Small Claims Court

35 Cal. App. 3d 643 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1973

It constitutes professional misconduct for an attorney to secure or attempt to secure fees in excess of those *647 allowed by the board (Coviello v. State Bar, 41 Cal.2d 273, 276 [ 259 P.2d 7 ]; see also Koker v. … The basis upon which fees are fixed should not be so low as to discourage competent attorneys from practicing in the field ( Bentley, supra, p. 550 ; Wasserman v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board (1968) 33 Cal.

Royal Packing Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

101 Cal. App. 3d 826 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1980

Opinion BROWN (Gerald), P. J. Royal Packing Company (Royal), an agricultural employer subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (Act) (Lab. … The Supreme Court, however, has noted in Labor Board v.

Cal-Metal Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

161 Cal. App. 3d 759 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1984

The Board determined the amount of sale subject to taxation was $1,056,070, as to which the Board imposed a tax of $62,814.24 plus interest in the amount of $6,132.93. 1 *763 On February 10, 1981, the Board issued a notice … (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equalization (1959) 51 Cal. 2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ]; King v. State Bd. of Equalization (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1012 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 802 ].)

Department of Corrections v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 716 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1999

Citing Livitsanos v. … (County of San Bernardino v.

Kilpatrick's Bakeries, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

77 Cal. App. 3d 539 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1978

Thus, the Inyo case is not nearly so persuasive as subsequent cases dealing with board decisions. The respondents also rely on Sierra Club v. … (Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 723 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 588 ].)

Santa Clara Federation of Teachers v. Governing Board

116 Cal. App. 3d 831 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1981

Hence the executive session in the instant case was in violation of the Brown Act. However, the validity of the action taken by the Board is not affected by the violation of the Brown Act. (Griswold v. Mt. … (Rutherford v. Board *850 of Trustees (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 167, 180 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 290 ].)

People v. Brown CA5

California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 2016

Filed 6/21/16 P. v. … F13911334) v. JIMMY RAY BROWN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

Yen Eng v. Board of Building & Safety Commissioners

184 Cal. App. 2d 514 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1960

Respondent board has power, aside from the municipal code, to abate a public nuisance. (Perepletchikoff v. City of Los Angeles, 174 Cal.App.2d 697, 699 [ 345 P.2d 261 ].) … Jockey Club, Inc. v. California etc. Racing Board, 36 Cal.2d 167 [ 223 P.2d 1 ].)

Dawson v. Board of Civil Service Commrs.

137 Cal. App. 414 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1934

This is a companion case to Jenkins v. Board of Civil Service Commission, (Civil No. 9356) ante, p. 410 [ 30 P.2d 606 ], the opinion in which last-named case has been this day filed.

California State Employees' Ass'n v. State Personnel Board

31 Cal. App. 3d 1009 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 1973

A majority of the members of the board constitutes a quorum. The vote of three concurring members shall be required to make any action of the *1012 board effective. … In Clements v. T. R.