Case law

Barr v. Venice Giant Dipper Co.

138 Cal. App. 563 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1934

The minor and two companions boarded one of the cars; an employee o£ defendant notified them that the cars would carry but two, whereupon the minor stepped out of the car, which was then in motion, and was thrown violently … In support of the rule are Brown v. Winnwood Amusement Co., 225 Mo. App. 1180 [ 34 S. W. (2d) 149 ]; Cooper v. Winnwood Amusement Co., (Mo. App.) 55 S. W. (2d) 737 ; Best Park & Amusement Co. v.

Lear v. Board of Retirement of San Diego County Employees Retirement Ass'n

79 Cal. App. 4th 427 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2000

(Ibid.; see also Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn. v. Board of Retirement (1997) 16 Cal.4th 483, 492 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 , 940 P.2d 891 ]; 7 Piombo v. Board of Retirement, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p. 336 .) … (Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn. v. Board of Retirement, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 492 .)

Public Employees of Riverside County, Inc. v. County of Riverside

75 Cal. App. 3d 882 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1977

This appeal involves the representation rights of supervisory employees under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (hereafter MMB Act; Gov. … (N.L.R.B. v. Gold Spot Dairy, Inc. (10th Cir. 1970) 432 F.2d 125 ; see N.L.R.B. v.

California School Employees Ass'n v. Kern Community College District Board of Trustees

41 Cal. App. 4th 1003 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1996

Employees Assn. v. Willits Unified Sch. … Assn. v. Sequoia etc.

Gaillard v. Natomas Co.

208 Cal. App. 3d 1250 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1989

(See Brown v. Ferro Corp. (6th Cir. 1985) 763 F.2d 798 [suit challenging corporation’s enactment of golden parachutes dismissed as not ripe]; Schreiber v. … (Gaillard v. Natomas Co. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 410, 412 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 74 ].) 4 The 12 outside directors of Natomas at the time of the merger, or their representatives, are Brown Badgett, Daniel A. Collins, Marjorie W.

Baldwin v. Fresno City Unified School District

125 Cal. App. 2d 44 · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 1954

In Hogsett v. … Construing a statute similar to that of California involving the validity of meetings held by school trustees, in upholding a contract of the board, it is said in Brown v.

Cramer v. County of Los Angeles

96 Cal. App. 2d 255 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1950

In Brown v. … City of Calipatria, 9 Cal.App.2d 267 [ 49 P.2d 320 ] ; Carroll v. Siebenthaler, 37 Cal. 193 .) In Veterans’ Welfare Board v.

Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage v. City of San Francisco

106 Cal. App. 3d 893 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1980

(Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of University of California (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 20, 36-37 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 365 ].)” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal. … In Lafayette Park Baptist Church v. Board of Adjustment of the City of St.

Brown v. Ralphs Grocery CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2014

Filed 3/6/14 Brown v. … [v.

San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority v. State Water Resources Control Board

183 Cal. App. 4th 1110 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 2010

(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 570, 572 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ]; Klajic v. … V. CEQA Issues; Salt/Boron TMDL Amendment A.

Overland v. Superior Court

23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 676 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 2005

CONTENTIONS Petitioners contend that in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation (1998) 524 U.S. 156 [ 141 L.Ed.2d 174 , 118 S.Ct. 1925 ] (Phillips) and Brown v. … (Brown, supra, 538 U.S. at p. 227 .) 6 However, we note that in United States v.

Schriber v. Alameda County-East Bay Title Insurance

156 Cal. App. 2d 700 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 1958

A letter, dated May 1, 1945, from Haughey to Brown, Schriber's attorney, stated that certain documents were to be held by Brown as security for the performance of the sale and lease agreement. … The complaint named as defendants the title company, Billington, Remmer and his wife, Haughey and his wife, Brown, the United States, the Franchise Tax Board, and the State of California.

Soc. Servs. Local 535 v. Bd. of Supervisors of Santa Barbara Cty.

82 Cal. App. 3d 498 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1978

Finding no California precedent in point, we turn to cases interpreting the National Labor Relations Act which the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act parallels. (Fire Fighters Union v. … (Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. N.L.R.B., supra, 387 F.2d at pp. 548-549; McCall Corporation v. N.L.R.B. (4th Cir. 1970) 432 F.2d 187, 188 ; N.L.R.B. v.

Apartment Ass'n of Greater Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board

24 Cal. App. 4th 1730 · California Court of Appeal · May 19, 1994

(Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984) 37 Cal.3d 644, 686 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 682 , 693 P.2d 261 ] affirmed on another ground (1986) 475 U.S. 260 [ 89 L.Ed.2d 206 , 106 S.Ct. 1045 ]; see also Searle v. … (Baker v. City of Santa Monica (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 972, 988 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 755 ], review den.) The return on investment standard has survived facial challenges brought on constitutional grounds. (See, e.g., Fisher v.

Reed v. Board of Education of the Monterey Union High School District

139 Cal. App. 661 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 1934

The answer to the question is found in Dupuy v. Board of Education, 106 Cal. App. 533 [ 289 Pac. 689 ]; Chambers v. Davis, 131 Cal. App. 500 [ 22 Pac. (2d) 27 ]. … (Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 63 Cal. App. 142 [ 218 Pac. 296 ].)” The Chambers v. Davis case is even more in point.

People v. Broun

109 Cal. App. 3d 284 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 15, 1980

Defendant relies principally on People v. … Brown [íz'c] has been in the county jail several-times.

Hale v. Farrell

115 Cal. App. 3d 164 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1981

Garland (1946) 27 Cal.2d 840 , 851 *167 [ 168 P.2d 5 ]; Childs v. Eltinge (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 843, 848 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 864 ]; Shuffer v. Board of Trustees (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 208, 217 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) 2. … (See Canales v. City of Alviso (1970) 3 Cal.3d 118, 130 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 474 P.2d 417 ]; Stanson v. Brown (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 812, 814-815 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 862 ].)

County of Alameda v. Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2024

Brown (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 688, 695, 711 (Rossi).) … Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 828 (Briggs).) There are two tests for measuring compliance with the single-subject rule. (One Technologies, LLC v.

People v. Haugh

216 Cal. App. 2d 603 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1963

The defendants’ contention has been decided adversely to their position in Pearson v. State Social Welfare Board, 54 Cal.2d 184, 210 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 353 P.2d 33 ] and Bila v. … J., and Brown (G.), J., concurred. 1 The People, in their reply brief, advised this court that certified copies of the regulations in question had been filed with the Secretary of State.

Verdi Development Co. v. Dono-Han Mining Co.

141 Cal. App. 2d 149 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1956

(Hiltscher v. Wagner, 96 Cal.App. 66, 68 [ 273 P. 590 ].) (See also Weaver v. Howatt, 171 Cal. 302, 307 [ 152 P. 925 ]; Weaver v. Howatt, 161 Cal. 77, 86 [ 118 P. 519 ]; Golden v. … (Jenny Lind Co. v. Bower & Co., 11 Cal. 194, 197 ; Byard v. Hoelscher, 112 Conn. 5, 9 [ 151 A. 351 ]; Dundalk Holding Co. v. Easter, 195 Md. 488 [ 73 A.2d 877, 879 ] ; Gutha v.