Case law

City of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles Employee Relations Board

7 Cal. App. 5th 150 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 2016

(See People v. … Foundation v.

Binkley v. City of Long Beach

16 Cal. App. 4th 1795 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1993

(Browning v. Block (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 423, 430 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 763 ] [Browning]; Barnes v. Personnel Department (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 502, 506 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 94 ] [Barnes].) … (Browning, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at p. 430 ; Board of Regents, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 573, fn. 12 [33 L.Ed.2d at pp. 558-559].)

Brown v. Anderson CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2014

Filed 11/26/14 Brown v. … (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1205; see Ramos v.

Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. State Board of Forestry

20 Cal. App. 4th 27 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1993

Proc., § 1097; City of Carmel-by-theSea v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 964, 971 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 379 ]; Cartwright v. Swoap (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 567, 571 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 402 ].) … King, J., and Haning, J., concurred. 1 The marbled murrelet, or Brachyrhamphus marmoratus, is a brown, robin-sized pelagic bird which depends on coastal old-growth habitat for nesting sites.

Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School District

57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2007

Indeed, if the CBA or the Brown Act proscribed Romer from making the challenged statements to the press, there would be a serious question as to the constitutionality of either. 8 (See 973 F.Supp. at pp. 956-960 [school board … , the Brown Act, and the CBA.

City of Brentwood v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 322 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 2004

(Hughes v. Board of Architectural Examiners, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 776 .) The organization of the division, chapters, and articles is an aid to understanding its purpose. (See People v. … (See Gwaltney v.

Atwell Island Water Dist. v. Atwell Island Water Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2020

(a).) “ ‘[T]wo or more persons are required in order to conduct a “meeting” within the meaning of the [Brown] Act.’ ” (Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 375–376.) … Appellant further contends it does not appear on the face of the pleadings that a violation of the Brown Act occurred or that Herr’s firm was not retained by a quorum of the board.

Oxley v. County of Orange

228 Cal. App. 2d 620 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1964

BROWN (Gerald), J. … XX, § 16; Patton v. Board of Health of San Francisco, 127 Cal. 388, 392 [ 59 P. 702 , 78 Am.St.Rep. 66 ]; Nightingale v. Williams, 70 Cal. App. 424, 430 [ 233 P. 807 ]; Farrell v.

Prokop v. Brown CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 2014

Filed 10/22/14 Prokop v. … (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown [(1981)] 29 Cal.3d [168,] 189.) The DPA can act only to the extent and in a manner consistent with the legislative delegation of authority.

People v. Brown CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2014

Filed 9/29/14 P. v. … In People v.

Save Our Schools v. Barstow Unified School District Board of Education

240 Cal. App. 4th 128 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 2015

Council, Inc. v. … (See Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd., supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 525-535; Keeler v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 596, 600; Cal. Adm.

St. Croix v. Superior Court

228 Cal. App. 4th 434 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2014

But the case he cites, People v. … (See Domar Electric, Inc. v.

Circle K Ranch Corp. v. Board of Sup'rs

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 97 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 2000

94 Cal.Rptr.2d 97 (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 194 CIRCLE K RANCH CORP., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS of the County of Santa Barbara, Defendant and Respondent. No. B124996. … (See Hayward v.

Californians for Safe Prescriptions v. California State Board of Pharmacy

19 Cal. App. 4th 1136 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1993

(Benton v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467, 1479 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 481 ].) … (Benton v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1478 .) Appellant has not met that burden.

Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

117 Cal. App. 3d 454 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1981

.— Introduction Defendants California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and Martin R. … (See Gilliam v. California Emp. Stab. Com. (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 102 [ 278 P.2d 528 ]; Stewart v. Florida Department of Commerce (Fla.App. 1971) 246 So.2d 146 ; Rich Manufacturing Corporation v.

Natomas Unified School Dist. v. Sac. County Board of Educ.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 2023

(See Davis v. … (California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 488, 501; see also Purifoy v.

South Bay Union School District v. Public Employment Relations Board

228 Cal. App. 3d 502 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1991

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 198 [citations].) … In Labor Board v.

Lake Madrone Water District v. State Water Resources Control Board

209 Cal. App. 3d 163 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1989

(Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 31 Cal.3d 124, 135 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 642 P.2d 792 ]; Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143, fn. 10 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 481 P.2d 242 ].) B. … City Council (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 546, 556 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 812 ]; see EPA v. State Water Resources Control Board (1976) 426 U.S. 200, 205-208 [ 48 L.Ed.2d 578, 583-585 , 96 S.Ct. 2022 ]; United States v.

Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

103 Cal. App. 3d 1001 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1980

The Board may not leave undeveloped matters which it identifies as requiring further evidence. Raymond Plastering v. WCAB (1967), 252 Cal.App.2d 748 , 32 CCC 287. … This is, therefore, an appropriate case for the Board to exercise its discretion to direct an examination by an independent physician. Lundberg v. WCAB (1968), 69 Cal.2d 436 , 33 CCC 656.

Thomas S. Castle Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

140 Cal. App. 3d 668 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 1983

Brown (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 69, 72-73 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 598 ].) Castle Farms urges that this case falls within the exception to this proscription of direct judicial review enunciated in Leedom v. … (Dessert Seed Co. v. Brown, supra, 96 Cal.App.3d at pp. 74-76; United Farm Workers v. Superior Court, supra, 72 Cal.App.3d at p. 275; J.R. Norton Co. v.