Case law

Morgan, Beauzay, Hammer, Ezgar, Bledsoe & Rucka v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

59 Cal. App. 3d 353 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 1976

We agree that the award, measured by the board’s own guidelines, is unreasonable, and that the board abused its discretion in permitting its workers’ compensation judge to employ standards not in conformance with the board … (See Bentley v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 547, 549-550 [ 171 P.2d 532 ]; Robert G. Beloud, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 729, 737 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 750 ].)

Los Angeles County Fire Fighters, Local 1014 v. Board of Retirement

46 Cal. App. 3d 762 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1975

II The board raises sundry objections both to the form of the action and to the language of the judgment. … If the judgment does restrict him from unlawfully refusing to obey the lawful directive of the board he has no cause to complain. 7 (3) The judgment directs board action not only as to the two individual petitioners but also

Flying Dutchman Park, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2001

Com. (1948) 31 Cal.2d 720, 725-726 [ 192 P.2d 916 ]; see also Aronoff v. Franchise Tax Board (1963) 60 Cal.2d 177, 179 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 383 P.2d 409 ].) … At oral argument, Flying Dutchman also relied upon Brown v.

Biddlecomb v. Haydon

4 Cal. App. 2d 361 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1935

(Brown v. Board of Trustees, 41 Cal. App. 100 [ 182 Pac. 316 ]; Olson v. Whitthorne & Swan, 203 Cal. 206 [ 263 Pac. 518 , 58 A. L. R 129].) In Scellars v. Universal Service, 68 Cal. … (Flickenger v. Industrial Acc. Com., 181 Cal. 425 [ 184 Pac. 851 , 19 A. L. R. 1150]; Hedge v. Williams, 131 Cal. 455 [ 63 Pac. 721 , 64 Pac. 106 , 82 Am. St. Rep. 366 ]; Brown v. Board of Trustees, 41 Cal.

Terris v. Co. of Santa Barbara

California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 2018

The Board of Supervisors approved the budget that authorized the layoffs. (County of Butte v. Superior Court (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 693, 698.) … (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1090-1091; Castillo v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 477, 481; Kupka v. Board of Administration (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 791, 794-795.)

Tuffli v. Governing Board of the San Diego Unified School District

30 Cal. App. 4th 1398 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1994

In Boyll v. … Governing Bd., supra, 46 Cal.App.3d at p. 651 ; Board of Education v. Calderon (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 490, 493-497 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 916 ].)

Mendocino County Employees Ass'n v. County of Mendocino

3 Cal. App. 4th 1472 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1992

Factual and Procedural Background In December 1987, pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov. … Service Employees v.

In Re Daniel G.

25 Cal. App. 4th 1205 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 1994

s progress in board and care; and providing referrals as needed to the foster mother. … Following Brown's testimony and arguments by counsel for DCS, Daniel and Ms.

People v. LABORDE

163 Cal. App. 4th 870 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 2008

See also U.S. v. Brown (S.D.Fla. 2004) 298 F.Supp.2d 1317 , in which customs agents ran a trained canine through the ship’s hallways after passengers had disembarked during a stop in Key West. … They targeted the *876 hallways in which defendant Brown’s cabin was located. After a canine alert, cocaine was discovered in the subsequent search of Brown’s luggage.

Verner v. Verner

77 Cal. App. 3d 718 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1978

(Smith v. Lewis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 349, 355 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 621 , 530 P.2d 589 , 78 A.L.R.3d 231 ].) In Crossan v. … (Bushman v. Superior Court (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 177 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 765 ]; Tilghman v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 599 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 195 ].)

People v. Gregory

217 Cal. App. 3d 665 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1990

(Steinmetz v. Cal. State Board of Education (1955) 44 Cal.2d 816, 822-823 [ 285 P.2d 617 ]; People v. Burns (1888) 75 Cal. 627, 630-631 [ 17 P. 646 ]; People v. … To knowingly violate a regulation one must have knowledge of the regulation.” ( Brown, supra, 86 Cal.App.3d at pp. 554-555; see also Fort v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, supra, 136 Cal.App.3d at pp. 21-22.)

Riggins v. Board of Education of the San Diego Unified School District

144 Cal. App. 2d 232 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1956

The hearing officer found, in brief, that the Board of Medical Examiners examined the appellant as provided in section 1021 of the Administrative Code of the district; that as a result of said examination, the medical board … (Savage v. Sox, 118 Cal.App.2d 479, 484 [ 258 P.2d 80 ].)

Odden v. County Foresters, Firewardens & County Fire Protection District Firemen's Retirement Board

108 Cal. App. 2d 48 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1951

The power of the court is confined to determining whether there was substantial evidence before the board to support its findings. (Ni shkian v. City of Long Beach, 103 Cal.App.2d 749, 751 [ 230 P.2d 156 ]; Cantrell v. … (Anderson v. Southern Pac. Co. 129 Cal.App. 206, 213 [ 18 P.2d 703 ] ; Estate of Eakle, 33 Cal.App.2d 379, 387 [ 91 P.2d 954 ].)

People v. Brown CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2021

Filed 1/5/21 P. v. … (People v.

Owens v. City of Oakland Housing, Residential Rent etc. Board

California Court of Appeal · May 29, 2020

The Rent Board set an administrative hearing for August 25, 2016. … Owens v.

Santandrea v. Siltec Corp.

56 Cal. App. 3d 525 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1976

Opinion BROWN (H. C.), J. … The Lorenzini letter of May 15 was an invitation for an offer from appellant, which offer would require approval by the Siltec board of directors. This approval did not occur. (See Grove v.

Santa Ana Food Market, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 523 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1999

(the Market) petitions for a writ of review regarding an order of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (the Board) affirming a stayed suspension of its liquor license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control … The Market-appealed the ABC’s decision to the Board, and the Board affirmed it. In doing so, the Board noted the Market engaged in “exemplary business conduct.” This petition for writ of review ensued.

Mills v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

261 Cal. App. 2d 666 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1968

Finance Committee v. … App,2d 642, 655 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 624 ]). •, Judgment affirmed.- : . '• . : Salsman, J., and Brown (H. C.), J., concurred.

Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. v. State Board of Equalization

23 Cal. App. 4th 1421 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1994

The question of whether regulation 1621 calls for actual fuel-usage figures in place of estimates, was addressed in Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 518 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 803 ]. … The relationship between the procedure and legitimate objectives of the Board is evident.” (Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at pp. 530-531.)

Brown v. Head CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 2023

Filed 9/20/23 Brown v. … (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.)