Case law

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 822 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2003

Furthermore, once the Board determines to exercise its jurisdiction over a petition for reconsideration, this establishes that the order was “final.” (See Kosowski v. Workers’ Comp. … We decline to apply such a variable definition. 11 This appears to be the Board’s view as well. (See Curtis v. Workers’ Comp.

Water Users Ass'n v. Board of Directors

34 Cal. App. 3d 131 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1973

Bd. of Supervisors, 43 Cal.App.2d 351 [ 110 P.2d 1076 ]; Pueblo Trading Co. v. El Camino Irr. Dist., 169 F.2d 312 ; May v. Board of Directors, 34 Cal.2d 125 [ 208 P.2d 661 ]; May v. … The district’s board stopped levying assessments to raise bond service costs until forced to resume by a decision of the state Supreme Court in July 1949. (May v. Board of Directors, supra, 34 Cal.2d 125 .)

Farmers Underwriters Ass'n v. Franchise Tax Board

242 Cal. App. 2d 589 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1966

Proc., § 1858; Burks v. Poppy Constr. Co., 57 Cal.2d 463, 470 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 370 P.2d 313 ].) … Proc., § 1858; Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equalization, 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].)

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

91 Cal. App. 3d 507 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1979

II Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (California School for the Deaf) (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 413 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 54 ] and our decision issued concurrently herewith of Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. … (See Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v.. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gregory) (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 336 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 368 ].)

County of Santa Barbara v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

109 Cal. App. 3d 211 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1980

Relying upon Tangye v. Henry C. Beck & Co. … (Harklerod v. Young’s Market Company (Board en banc opinion, 1979) 44 Cal.Comp.Cases 561, 562. Italics added.)

Tue Ngoc Hoang v. California State Board of Pharmacy

230 Cal. App. 4th 448 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 2014

In upholding a board’s decision to revoke an architect’s license for fraud, deceit, and willful misconduct, Hughes v. … (Hanna v.

National Broadcasting Co. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

95 Cal. App. 3d 550 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1979

The Board’s argument is apparently based on its misinterpretation of language to be found in Gardner v. State of California, supra, 53 Cal.2d 23 . … (Shoban v. Board of Trustees, 276 Cal.App.2d 534 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 112 ]; Mark Hopkins, Inc. v. Cal. Emp. Com., supra, 24 Cal.2d 744 .) NABET “struck the first blow” by ordering a strike of its members against NBC.

Rubio v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners

45 Cal. App. 2d 806 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1941

This position had been duly created by the Board of Public Service Commissioners and included in the classified civil service of defendant city for more than six months prior to July 1, 1925, the effective date of the present … This question must be answered in the affirmative, for the reasons stated in Bente v. Department of Water and Power, No. 13087 [ante, p. 589 ( 114 Pac. (2d) 699 )], which we have this day decided.

Board of Parole Hearings v. Superior Court

170 Cal. App. 4th 104 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2008

The limited stay did not preclude the Board from conducting the parole suitability hearing scheduled for August 20, 2008. By the same order, pursuant to Palma v. U.S. … California Code of Regulations governs. 6 The factors that tend to show unsuitability for parole are (1) the commitment offense was carried out in an “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner,” (2) a “[previous [rjecord of [v]

Franchise Tax Board v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

139 Cal. App. 3d 843 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 1983

The dispute arises because the Board claims that Firestone is, to say the least, uncooperative in the audit. In Franchise Tax Board v. … The advantages of applying technology to the reproduction of information were well set forth a decade and more ago in Boren v. Tucker, 9 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 767, 771 , and Westside Ford, Inc. v.

Cervisi v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

208 Cal. App. 3d 635 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1989

(Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143, fn. 10 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 481 P.2d 242 ]; Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners (1948) 32 Cal.2d 301, 308 [ 196 P.2d 20 ]; see Cal. … (Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, at p. 308.) III. Late Appeal * IV.

California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 12 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2004

(Klajic v. … .” 6 The Board also relied on Burrow v.

Permanente Medical Group v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

73 Cal. App. 3d 135 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 1977

Board judge' for further proceedings. … (LaBorde v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 264 Cal.App.2d 363, 370 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 726 ].)

Armodia v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

202 Cal. App. 3d 554 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1988

(San Diego Transit Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Renfro), supra, 28 Cal.3d 635, 637 .) Although the Board is invested with broad equitable powers (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. … J., and Smith, J., concurred. 1 In the area of rehabilitation benefits, the Bureau operates under the appellate supervision of the Board. (Bussear v. Workers’ Comp.

North American Rockwell Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

9 Cal. App. 3d 154 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1970

We have reached the conclusion that the injury is compensable and the decision of the appeals board is correct. The pertinent facts, established by stipulation, are as follows. At 4 p.m. on October 16, 1968, Andrew H. … In finding the injury compensable, the appeals board relied on the general rule that injuries sustained by an employee while going to or from his place of work upon premises owned or controlled by his employer are deemed

San Joaquin Agricultural Corp. v. Board of Supervisors

121 Cal. App. 468 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1932

The validity of the order of the Board of Supervisors denying petitioner’s application for exclusion of lands. … The first objection presented by the appellants covers precisely the questions presented and considered by this court in the case of Miller & Lux, Inc., a Corporation, v.

Western Board of Adjusters, Inc. v. Covina Publishing, Inc.

9 Cal. App. 3d 659 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1970

Assn. v. Case-Swayne Co., 73 Cal.App.2d 806, 811-814 [ 167 P.2d 541 ]; see Beaudry v. Vache, 45 Cal. 3, 5 .) The degree of worthlessness need only be that for security purposes. (Williams v. … There were-evidently copyrights and negatives of books, of which “Chaplin v.

Anderson-Cottonwood Disposal Service v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

135 Cal. App. 3d 326 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1982

Since the employer is not a joint tortfeasor, Witt v. Jackson does not apply. (Ruiz, at pp. 469-470.) The board properly declined to apply Ruiz for it is no longer the law. … We assume arguendo the identical issue of employer negligence was presented in Webb’s civil action and the board proceedings. (See Jackson v.

Lawrence Drasin & Associates v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

3 Cal. App. 4th 1564 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1992

In Goler v. … Beloud, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 737 .) The Board asserts it is uncertain to what extent Mr.

3 Stonedeggs, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

California Court of Appeal · May 10, 2024

ADJ14015513) v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND BRADEN NANEZ, Respondents. … In contrast, the Board in Norman v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 87 [1997 Cal.Wrk.Comp.