Case law

City of Los Angeles v. Board of Supervisors

105 Cal. App. 199 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 1930

California Transit Co., 199 Cal. 246 [ 248 Pac. 923 ]; Haviland v. Southern California Edison Co., 172 Cal. 601 [ 158 Pac. 328 ]; Mardesich v. City of Los Angeles, 100 Cal. App. 215 [ 279 Pac. 810 ]; Yolo W. & P. Co. v. … App. 410 [ 187 Pac. 755 ]; Borgmeyer v. Solomon, 39 Cal. App. 106 [ 178 Pac. 544 ]; Pacific Power Co. v. State, 31 Cal. App. 719 [ 162 Pac. 641 ]; Hagenkamp v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc., 29 Cal.

People v. Brown CA3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 2016

Filed 3/8/16 P. v. … No. 14F04720) v. LERON BROWN, Defendant and Appellant. The crux of this case turns on the definitions of burglary and larceny. So, we begin with these.

Sierra Pacific Industries v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 550 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2006

(Myers v. … (Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Ind. Acc.

Neel v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 353 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1998

She relied on Rhiner v. Worker’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1213 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 129 , 848 P.2d 244 ], which reaffirmed Gallamore v. Workers’ Comp. … (Gallamore v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 822-823.) According to Rhiner v. Workers’ Comp.

United States Steel Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

144 Cal. App. 3d 473 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1983

The Board has the authority to audit the operations of such corporations (Code, § 26423; Franchise Tax Board v. … The instant case is not unlike that of Barnes v.

Milpitas Unified School District v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

187 Cal. App. 4th 808 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 1, 2010

This rule is binding on both the Board and this court and is applicable to all aspects of workers’ compensation law. (Lundberg v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … Co. v. Pillsbury (1916) 173 Cal. 56, 58-60 [ 159 P. 150 ].) The Board noted preamendment decisions confirming the rebuttability of the Schedule. (See, e.g., Glass v. Workers’ Comp.

People Ex Rel. Brown v. Pacific Grove High School District

11 Cal. App. 209 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1909

The court finds ■that the allegation is true as to the absence of any paper or record entry in the proper office, but further finds “that a *211 petition was duly and regularly presented to the board of school trustees of … It was held in Board of Education v.

Inglewood Teachers Ass'n. v. Public Employment Relations Board

227 Cal. App. 3d 767 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1991

, Board or officer.” … Citing Vista Verde Farms v.

Not About Water Committee v. Board of Supervisors

116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 526 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2002

Prominent among these is Avery v. … To quote the court’s opinion in Ball v.

Frudden Enterprises, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

153 Cal. App. 3d 262 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1984

B. v. Brown & Root, Inc. (8th Cir. 1963) 311 F.2d 447, 452 , italics added.) … B. v. Brown & Root, Inc., supra, 311 F.2d at p. 454 .)

Republic Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

115 Cal. App. 3d 361 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1981

Tidewater Oil Co. v. Workers’ Comp. … (Rountree v. Time D.C.

Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

81 Cal. App. 3d 257 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1978

Our view that the Board exceeded its authority in this attempt to alter classifications of taxable property is supported by the recent decision of C. R. Fedrick, Inc. v. … (See, e.g., State Tax Commission v. Graybar Electric Company (1959) 86 Ariz. 253 [ 344 P.2d 1008 ]; Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Calvert (Tex. 1975) 519 S.W.2d 106 ; Avco Manufacturing Corporation v.

Kaye v. Board of Trustees of San Diego County Public Law Library

179 Cal. App. 4th 48 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 2009

The fourth cause of action alleges the Board violated the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.). … Therefore, we conclude Kaye cannot establish the Board’s choice of advisory counsel violated the Brown Act. Kaye’s reliance on our decision in Howitt v.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

10 Cal. App. 4th 1413 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 1992

(Gough Industries v. State Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 746, 749 [ 336 P.2d 161 ].) … The Board’s reliance on two additional cases is misplaced. In Hugo Neu Corp. v.

Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Superior Court

203 Cal. App. 3d 691 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 1988

(a); Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 137-140 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 481 P.2d 242 ]; Taylor v. State Personnel Bd. (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 498, 502 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 677 ]; Weary v. … The Board, however, ignores an important secondary rule of statutory construction which is concisely stated in Isobe v. Unemployment Ins.

Ruline Nursery Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

169 Cal. App. 3d 247 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1985

(Clopton v. … (Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C. Cir. 1950) 185 F.2d 732 , cert. den. 341 U.S. 914 [ 95 L.Ed. 1350 , 71 S.Ct. 734 ].) (See also, Montebello Rose Co. v.

Building Industry Ass'n v. State Water Resources Control Board

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 128 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 2005

(See EPA v. State Water Resources Control Board, supra, 426 U.S. at pp. 204-205.) … (See EPA v. State Water Resources Control Board, supra, 426 U.S. at p. 205, fn. 12 ; PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cty. v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, supra, 511 U.S. at p. 715 ; Northwest Environmental Advocates v.

Ledbetter Erection Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

156 Cal. App. 3d 1097 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1984

Applicant concedes that if the contract of employment was not made in California, the board is without jurisdiction. (See Alaska Packers Assn. v. Indus. Acc. Com., supra, 1 Cal.2d at pp. 255-257.) … Co. v. Workmen's Comp. App.

Holtville Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

168 Cal. App. 3d 388 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 1985

The petition for review filed by Holtville Farms has been reviewed and considered by Presiding Justice Brown, Justices Wiener and Butler. The petition is denied. (See Tex-Cal Land Management, Inc. v. … B. v. Brown & Root, Inc. (8th Cir. 1963) 311 F.2d 447, 452 .) “ ‘In any case, there may be several equally valid methods of computation, each yielding a somewhat different result. . . .

Pierce v. Board of Nursing Education & Nurse Registration

255 Cal. App. 2d 463 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1967

Also in the case of Elder v. … Code, § 11513, subd. c). we will assume the statement sufficient to shift the burden of proof to respondent board in showing the propriety of the search. (See People v.