Case law

Wall v. Sonora Union High School District

240 Cal. App. 2d 870 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1966

Astendorf, supra, 21 Cal.2d 329 ; Rounds v. Brown, 121 Cal.App.2d 642 [ 263 P.2d 620 ]; Wicklund v. Plymouth E. School Dist., 37 Cal.App.2d 252 [ 99 P.2d 314 ]. … (See Artukovich v. Astendorf, supra, 21 Cal.2d 329 ; State Farm etc. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 232 Cal.App.2d 808, 810 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 209 ].)

People v. Brown CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 2014

Filed 4/22/14 P. v. … This discovery heightened the deputy's suspicions as well as concerns for Brown's safety. As the phrase was used in Terry v.

Messenger Courier Ass'n of Americas v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

175 Cal. App. 4th 1074 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2009

reaching similar conclusions to those of the Board here, Air Couriers Internat. v. … Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen (7th Cir. 1987) 835 F.2d 1529 ; New Deal Cab Co. v. Fahs (5th Cir. 1949) 174 F.2d 318 .)

People v. Brown CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · May 2, 2014

Filed 5/2/14 P. v. … BA403794) v. RODERICK SHAFER BROWN, JR. Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David V. Herriford, Judge. Affirmed. Paul J.

Communist Party of the United States of Amerika v. 522 Valencia, Inc.

35 Cal. App. 4th 980 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 1995

At the time of trial, appellants Vandever, Esther Brown, Lee Brown, Sweet, and Sorro were on the board of directors of 522 Valencia. All had been members of the Party up until they left it in 1992. … (Brown v. Memorial Nat. Home Foundation (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 448, 455 [ 322 P.2d 600 , 72 A.L.R.2d 997 ].)

People v. Palmer

222 Cal. App. 2d 825 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1963

(People v. Vogel, 46 Cal.2d 798, 801 [ 299 P.2d 850 ].) … (People v. Lindley, 26 Cal.2d 780 [ 161 P.2d 227 ]; People v. Crooker, 47 Cal.2d 348 [ 303 P.2d 753 ].)

San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District v. Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Ass'n

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 724 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 2004

Accordingly, we hold that the District cannot raise this issue for the first time in its motion to dismiss the Board’s appeal. *352 Finally, the District’s argument regarding the Brown Act violations alleged to have occurred … Co. v.

Spreckels v. City & County of San Francisco

76 Cal. App. 267 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 1926

Co. v. Wannamaker & Brown, 115 Mo. App. 270 [ 90 S. W. 737, 743 ].) … Where fair and impartial minds may draw different conclusions from the evidence though there be no conflict therein, the conclusions drawn by the trial court must be sustained on appeal (Kelly v. Brown, 2 Cal.

Brown v. Mortensen CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 2014

Filed 4/1/14 Brown v. … (Brown v. Mortensen (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 789, review granted Apr. 14, 2010.) The California Supreme Court reversed, holding the Fair Credit Reporting Act did not preempt the claims. (Brown v.

Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Board of Education

51 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1975

Further, in Board of Education v. … Cornwell v. State Board of Education, 314 F.Supp. 340, 342 ).

Bonzi v. People ex rel. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

216 Cal. App. 4th 1085 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 2013

While the account is not a payment to the Board, and in fact the Board does not have an interest in or claim to this money, it must be maintained in the account. … In Wood v.

California Standardbred Sires Stakes Committee, Inc. v. California Horse Racing Board

231 Cal. App. 3d 751 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1991

(Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 524 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 393 P.2d 689 ]; Kupka v. Board of Administration (1981) 112 Cal.App.3d 791 , 794 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 214 ].) … (Kupka v. Board of Administration, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at p. 795 .)” (Sinetos v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1172, 1175-1176 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 207 ].)

Stein v. Simpson

96 Cal. App. 2d 642 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 1950

(Lande v. Southern Cal. Freight Lines, 78 Cal.App.2d 417 [ 177 P.2d 936 ].) … (Fairbanks v. Lampkin, 99 Cal. 429 [ 34 P. 101 ] ; Southern Cal. Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, 127 Cal. 417 [ 59 P. 789 ] ; Hughes v. Chung Sun Tung Co., 28 Cal.App. 371 [ 154 P. 299, 301 ] ; Lande v. Southern Cal.

Clark v. Brown CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2014

Filed 3/7/14 Clark v. … TC025700) v. TANYA BROWN et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William P. Barry, Judge. Affirmed.

People v. Brown CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 2014

Filed 4/3/14 P. v. … (People v. Blalock (1960) 53 Cal.2d 798, 801; see People v. Howard (1965) 62 Cal.2d 237, 238 [claims could have been raised on direct appeal]; People v.

Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Ass'n v. State Water Resources Control Board

23 Cal. App. 4th 1459 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1994

The new legislation retained from prior law the concept of enforcement of water quality objectives through nine regional boards, but gave the regional boards and the State Water Resources Control Board greater powers and … (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 69 ; Camp v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at p. 357 .)

Ass'n of Graduate Student Employees v. Public Employment Relations Board

6 Cal. App. 4th 1133 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1992

In Regents of University of California v. … Corp. v.

Mola Development Corp. v. Orange County Assessment Appeals Board No. 2

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 546 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 2000

(See Westling v. … In Westling v.

Leitch v. Marx

21 Cal. App. 208 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1913

App. 45 , [ 91 Pac. 336 ]; Mitchell v. Brown, 18 Cal. App. 117, 121 , [ 122 Pac. 426 ], and oases therein cited.) … (Mitchell v. Brown, 18 Cal. App. 117 , [ 122 Pac. 426 ] ; Bush v. Wood, 8 Cal. App. 650 , [ 97 Pac. 709 ].) 'The plaintiff testified that “the fact of this assignment to me was known to the president of the corporation.

Da Vinci Group v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board

5 Cal. App. 4th 24 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 1992

(Barnes v. Chamberlain (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 762, 767 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 417 ].) “The construction of a municipal ordinance is governed by the same rules as the construction of statutes.” (City of Los Angeles v. … Da Vinci claims the board’s rules impermissibly expand the scope of the Ordinance (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1389 ) and its live-work policy directly conflicts with it.