Case law

Six Flags, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 377 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 2006

The workers’ compensation judge issued a report recommending that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) deny the petition for reconsideration. … (See also Greener v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1028, 1038 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 539 , 863 P.2d 784 ].) Subsequently, the Board issued an order denying Pacific’s petition for reconsideration.

California Grape Control Board., Ltd. v. California Produce Corp.

4 Cal. App. 2d 242 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1935

Under such circumstances the great weight of authority compels an affirmance of the judgment; the rule applicable being well stated in Beekman v. Marsters, 195 Mass. 205 [ 80 N. E. 817, 821 , 122 Am. St. … Co. v. Mudd & Colley Am. Co., 204 Ala. 509 [ 86 So. 209 ]; Northern Wis. C. T. P. v. Bekkedal, 182 Wis. 571 [ 197 N. W. 936 ]; Fort v. Co-op. Farmers’ Exchange, 81 Colo. 431 [ 256 Pac. 319 ]; Phez Co. v.

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

248 Cal. App. 4th 349 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 2016

413 [municipal code provision that board of permit appeals shall act within specified time held directory, not jurisdictional]; Board of Education v. … Pines v.

City of Oakland v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

271 Cal. App. 2d 555 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1969

(Fraide) 63 Cal.2d 242 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 404 P.2d 801 ]; Stafford v. Los Angeles etc. Retirement Board, 42 Cal.2d 795 [ 270 P.2d 12 ]; Lyons v. Hoover, 41 Cal. 2d 145 [ 258 P.2d 4 ]; Healy v. Industrial Acc. … (See Martin v. Alcoholic Beverage etc. Appeals Board, 55 Cal.2d 867 , 875 *560 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 362 P.2d 337 ].)

Ohton v. Board of Trustees of California State University

56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 111 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2007

Board of Trustees of California State University. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 393 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 644 ] [quoting City of Sacramento v. Drew].) … (Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Air Resources Board (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 789, 794 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 550 ].)

Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

28 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,430 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1981

Squarely in point is Chula Vista Electric Co. v. … Co. v. Cal. St. Bd. Equal. (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 87 [ 290 P.2d 20 ].

Occidental Life Insurance v. State Board of Equalization

135 Cal. App. 3d 845 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 1982

Nature of Appeal: Appeal from a judgment of dismissal, after a demurrer was sustained, of an action brought by several insurance companies as a class *847 (appellants) against the State Board of Equalization (respondent) … (Brown v. Ohio (1977) 432 U.S. 161, 167 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 187, 195 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 ]; Garner v. Louisiana (1961) 368 U.S. 157, 169 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 207, 216-217 , 82 S.Ct. 248 ]; Gurley v.

Cow Hollow Improvement Club v. Board of Permit Appeals

245 Cal. App. 2d 160 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1966

(City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.2d 236, 248 [ 347 P.2d 294 ]; Lindell Co. v. Board of Permit Appeals, 23 Cal.2d 303, 313-314 [ 144 P.2d 4]; Iscoff v. … (Le Strange v. City of Berkeley, supra, p. 321 ; Thain v. City of Palo Alto, 207 Cal. App.2d 173, 193 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 515 ]; Endo v. State Board of Equalization, 143 Cal.App.2d 395, 399 [ 300 P.2d 366 ]; Moran v.

A. M. Castle & Co. v. Franchise Tax Board

36 Cal. App. 4th 1794 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1995

Franchise Tax Board, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d 1510, 1520-1521 (Tenneco); Standard Register Co. v. Franchise Tax Board (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 125, 130 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 803 ].) 1. … Franchise Tax Board (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 970, 973 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 465 ]; Standard Register Co. v. Franchise Tax Board (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 125, 137-138 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 803 ]; see also *1805 Colgate-Palmolive Co. v.

County of Sacramento v. Assessment Appeals Board No. 2

32 Cal. App. 3d 654 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1973

Franchise Tax Board (1963) 60 Cal.2d 177, 179-180 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 383 P.2d 409 ]; Jillson v. Board of Supervisors (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 192 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 419 ]; see Tieberg v. … Boren v. State Personnel Board, supra, 37 Cal.2d 638 ; Eisley v. Mohan, supra, 31 Cal.2d 640 ; Allen v. Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, supra, 220 Cal.App.2d 881-882; County of L. A. v. Tax Appeals Bd.

Malibu Outrigger Board of Governors v. Superior Court

103 Cal. App. 3d 573 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1980

CA 000255 (Malibu Outrigger Board of Governors, etc. v. Morris, hereinafter called Morris) and instead dismiss the action, without prejudice, pursuant to section 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure. … (LaSala v. American Savings & Loan Assn., 5 Cal.3d 864, 872 .)

County of Alameda v. State Board of Equalization

131 Cal. App. 3d 374 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1982

(People v. … (See generally Gassman v. Governing Board (1976) 18 Cal.3d 137, 148 [ 133 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 554 P.2d 321 ]; Burgess v. Board of Education (1974) 41 Cal.App.2d 571, 581 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 183 ].)

California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Board

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 169 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 2006

(Compare McQueen v. … Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143-1147 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 439 ], [notice of exemption improperly used, incomplete and misleading] (McQueen), disapproved on other grounds in Western States Petroleum Assn. v.

Dental Insurance Consultants, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

1 Cal. App. 4th 343 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 5, 1991

(Mole-Richardson Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 889, 894 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 662 ].) The taxpayer has the burden of showing the Board’s decision was incorrect. (Consolidated Accessories Corp. v. … II The Board argues that the businesses were not functionally integrated as that term was used in F. W. Woolworth Co. v.

Fairview State Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

138 Cal. App. 3d 595 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1982

Although the considered expert opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence to support a determination of the Board (Smith v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … Exch. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [ 305 P.2d 55 ], the court made the statement quoted by the Board in its order.

United States Prot. Assn. v. Board of Commrs.

14 Cal. App. 249 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 1910

making it entirely discretionary with the board of police commissioners, and there being nothing to show that it was the duty of such board of police commissioners to issue such permit, and the writ of mandate being a prerogative … writ, which issues only in cases where it is made the duty of any inferior tribunal, board, or person, by reason of their office, to do some act, and there being no such duty imposed upon this board, the judgment is affirmed

City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Board

38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 373 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2006

V APA Requirements Lastly, the Cities contend the trial court erred by finding the Water Boards did not violate the APA. … (Pronsolino v.

Flores v. Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County

13 Cal. App. 3d 480 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1970

Board of Supervisors, supra, 105 Cal.App. 199 [ 287 P. 135 ] [through oversight of calendar clerk in legal division of city department opening brief on appeal not timely filed]; H. G. B. Alexander & Co. v. … In Etchepare v.

Jey Lyang Yu v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

3 Cal. App. 4th 286 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1992

(See, e.g., Tokaji v. State Board of Equalization (1937) 20 Cal.App.2d 612, 615-616 [ 67 P.2d 1082 ]; Empire Vintage Co. v. Collins (1940) 40 Cal.App.2d 612, 617 [ 105 P.2d 391 ].) … State Board of Equalization (1953) 40 Cal.2d 772 [ 256 P.2d 1 ]; Kirby v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Board, supra, 7 Cal.3d 433 .)

Holland Furnace Co. v. State Board of Equalization

177 Cal. App. 2d 672 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1960

The petition for redetermination was considered and treated by the board as a claim for refund. … The Legislature has provided a means whereby this question can be decided and, if the board did err, the taxpayer can get back (that is, obtain a “refund”) whatever additional amount he may have paid by reason of the board