Case law

California School Boards Ass'n v. State Board of Education

191 Cal. App. 4th 530 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2010

The State Board has authority to “fill up the *559 details” by defining the meaning of the phrase “substantially rent free” in section 47613. (Marshall v. … (See Weber, Lipshie & Co. v. Christian (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 645, 658-659 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 ]; see also Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1316 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 758 ].)

Industrial Asphalt, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

5 Cal. App. 4th 1237 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1992

The Tax Board considered the transaction as one of sale and taxed the corporations. They paid the taxes and sought reimbursement on the theory of no sale. The trial court agreed and ordered a refund. The board appeals. … Assumption of liabilities is a “consideration” (Newco Leasing, Inc. v.

Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

46 Cal. App. 3d 268 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1975

(Marchica v. State Board of Equalization, 107 Cal.App.2d 501, 513 [ 237 P.2d 725 ].) Because the facts are undisputed, only the problem of applying the sales tax statute to the facts remains. (See King v. … (b); Banken v. State Board of Equalization, 79 Cal.App.2d *273 572 [ 180 P.2d 400 ]) and that amounts received from more than one source may be included in gross receipts (see Anders v.

California Faculty Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 654 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2006

City School Dist. v. … v.

Sabey v. City of Pomona

215 Cal. App. 4th 489 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 2013

(Midstate Theatres, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 864 [the same lawyer cannot represent the county assessor and advise the board of equalization in the same proceeding].) … (DeRose v.

Aetna Life Insurance v. State Board of Equalization

11 Cal. App. 4th 1207 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1992

The trial court entered judgment for respondent State Board of Equalization (the Board), from which Aetna appeals, contending that it was unlawfully taxed on premiums it never received. I. … Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1982) 32 Cal.3d 649 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 578 , 652 P.2d 426 ] (hereafter Metropolitan) controlled the case and entered judgment in favor of the Board. 1 II.

Chase Brass & Copper Co. v. Franchise Tax Board

70 Cal. App. 3d 457 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1977

Stores v. McColgan, supra, at p. 481; Superior Oil Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 60 Cal.2d 406, 412 . . ..)” (Italics added.) … Thus, as to the Board, the determination excluding the net income from the other metals is the law of the case (Gore v. Bingaman, 20 Cal.2d 118, 122-124 [ 124 P.2d 17 ]; Pillsbury v.

Schoenberg v. County of Los Angeles Assessment Appeals Board

179 Cal. App. 4th 1347 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 2009

The court relied on Little v. … Moore v.

City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Board

191 Cal. App. 4th 156 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 2010

In County of Los Angeles v. … (Pronsolino v.

Diamond National Corp. v. State Board of Equalization

60 Cal. App. 3d 283 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 20, 1976

The board *286 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. … State Board of Equalization, 58 Cal.2d 252 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 589 , 373 P.2d 637 ]. In reversing our decision, the United States Supreme Court reiterated the controlling nature of its 1968 decision in Agricultural Bank v.

River Valley Reservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Board

37 Cal. App. 4th 154 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1995

Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 1995) §23.112, p. 1020, citing Whitman v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 417 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 866 ] and Mountain Defense League v. … Mira Monte Homeowners Assn. v.

State Ex Rel. State Public Works Board v. Whitlow

243 Cal. App. 2d 490 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 1966

People v. Peninsula Title Guar. … (People v.

Palm Springs Turf Club v. California Horse Racing Board

155 Cal. App. 2d 242 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 1957

Jockey Club v. California Horse Racing Board, 36 Cal.2d 167, 173-175 [ 223 P.2d 1 ] ; Marcucci v. Board of Equalization, 138 Cal.App.2d 605, 608 [ 292 P.2d 264 ].) … As the court said in Marcucci v. Board of Equalization, 138 Cal.

Santa Barbara Optical Co. v. State Board of Equalization

47 Cal. App. 3d 244 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1975

It also cites Bozaich v. … (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, at p. 704; Vasquez v.

Cobb v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 741 · California Court of Appeal · May 9, 2002

(Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 488, 492, fn. 2 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 818 , 709 P.2d 837 ].) … (Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 284, 291-292 [ 267 P.2d 16 ]; Sunburst Bank v. Executive Life Ins. Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1164 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 734 ].)

San Diego Federation of Teachers v. Board of Education

216 Cal. App. 2d 758 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1963

(Rible v. Hughes, supra, 24 Cal.2d 437, 445; Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.2d 753, 757-758 [ 112 P.2d 229 ].) … J., and Brown, (G.), J., concurred. Appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied July 24, 1963. 1 The quoted language is taken from the board’s answer to the petition.

General Dynamics Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 907 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1999

This case involves the effect of a compromise and release signed by real party in interest, Florence V. … Relying on General Foundry Service v. Workers Comp.

Douglas Aircraft Co. v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

180 Cal. App. 2d 636 · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 1960

(Myerson v. Board of Review, supra [N.J. App.Div.], 43 N.J. Super. 196 [ 128 A.2d 15 ]; Campbell Soup Co. v. Board of Review [N.J. Supreme Court], 13 N.J. 431 [ 100 A.2d 287 ]; Smith v. … Subsequently in Myerson v. Board of Review (N.J. App. Div.), supra, 43 N.J.

Citroen Cars Corp. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

107 Cal. App. 3d 945 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 1980

out of their employment or its termination. 6 Such an interpretation of a vested right to receive payments ignores the discussion of this issue in Powell v. … Hereafter Appeals Board. Hereafter Claimants. Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (c); Bixby v.

County of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Board

64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 302 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 2007

The parties agree that we examine the Boards’ interpretation of legal matters utilizing a de novo standard of review. (County of Los Angeles v. … (Hassan v.