Case law

People v. Brown CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 2022

Filed 6/22/22 P. v. … No. 21PT-00562) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County) v. LATION BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.

People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. California Milk Producers Advisory Board

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 900 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2005

from the Alfalfa Seed Production Research Board to the California Processing Tomato Advisory Board. … Board of Civil Service Commrs. (1942) 21 Cal.2d 399 [ 132 P.2d 804 ] [state is a “person” within the meaning of declaratory relief statute]; and *880 LeVine v.

In Re Marriage of Judd

68 Cal. App. 3d 515 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1977

We note further that in Brown, the Supreme Court also stated “[o]ur suggestion in Phillipson v. … However, subsequent to the trial court’s decision, the law on this subject changed with the ruling in In re Marriage of Brown, supra, 15 Cal.3d 838 . 2 In Brown, the court overruled its decision in French v.

Preven v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2019

The Brown Act “The purpose of the Brown Act is to facilitate public participation in local government decisions and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation.” (Boyle v. … The Legislature also created an exception to such public comment at regular meetings of a city council or board of supervisors where the public had previously addressed a committee of the council or board on the agenda item

Crooks v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.

124 Cal. App. 2d 113 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1954

Pensions v. Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, 91 Cal.App.2d 658 [ 205 P.2d 761 ]; Silver v. Sheman *120 ski, 89 Cal.App.2d 520, 551 [ 201 P.2d 418 ].) It was noted in Kessloff v. … In Shook v.

Estate of Strickman

247 Cal. App. 2d 469 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1966

In the summer of 1963, the testatrix decided to substitute Brown for Nathanson as executor. She took the will to Brown's home and discussed the matter with him and his wife. … Brown had a typewriter in her home and agreed to type up a new page 3. The testatrix left the will with Mrs. Brown so that she could use the original page 3 as a form from which to copy.

In Re Greenwood

87 Cal. App. 3d 777 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1978

Opinion BROWN (G. A.), P. J. In an information as amended petitioner was charged with burglary (Pen. … (People v. Superior Court (Gonzales), supra, 78 Cal.App.3d 134 ; People v. Alcala (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 425 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 442 ].)

California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 743 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 2006

(In-Home, at p. 727; see also State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Workers’ Comp. … (See, e.g., Cedillo v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at pp. 234-235; Furtado v. Schriefer (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1608, 1616-1617 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 16 ]; Stewart v. Workers’ Comp.

People v. Brown CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 2022

Filed 6/6/22 P. v. … A018846) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County) v. CHARLES STEVEN BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.

Benjamin v. Ricks

63 Cal. App. 3d 593 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 1976

(Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. State of California (1969) 71 Cal.2d 566, 578 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 456 P.2d 645 , 38 A.L.R.3d 1194 ]; Darcy v. Mayor etc. of San Jose (1894) 104 Cal. 642, 645-646 [ 38 P. 500 ].)” (Brown v. … (McDonald v. Board of Election Comrs. (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 809 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 739, 745-746 , 89 S.Ct. 1404 ].)” (In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 255 , 473 P.2d 999 ].)

County of San Bernardino v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

125 Cal. App. 3d 679 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1981

“New and further disability” constitutes “good cause” for reopening (see Nicky Blair’s Restaurant v. Workers’ Comp. … Suffice it to say that neither the desire by one of the parties to relitigate the original decision nor a change of mind on the part of the Board constitutes “good cause” for reopening. (See Nicky Blair’s Restaurant v.

Tri-Cities Children's Center, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors

166 Cal. App. 3d 589 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 1985

Assn. v. San Francisco (1931) 211 Cal. 387, 390 [ 295 P. 813 ]; Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 23, 27 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 422 ].) … (See, e.g., City of Palo Alto v. County of Santa Clara (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 918 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 544 ].)

Ritter & Ritter, Inc. Pension & Profit Plan v. the Churchill Condominium Assn.

166 Cal. App. 4th 103 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2008

The individual defendant and appellant directors of The Churchill are Tibor Breier, Martha Brown, Theodore Nittler (referred to as Edwin Nittler in some court records), Ruth Hochberg and Basil Anderman *109 (the Board). 1 … ‘The Churchill Yes ‘Basil Anderman No ‘Tibor Breier No Martha Brown No ‘Ruth Hochberg No ‘Edwin Nittler No “6.

Eastern Municipal Water District v. Scott

1 Cal. App. 3d 129 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1969

No. 13 v. Hinman, supra, 220 Cal. 578, 587; El Dorado Irr. Dist. v. Browne, 216 Cal. 269, 272 [ 13 P.2d 921 ]; Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. … Dist. v. Browne, supra, 216 Cal. 269, 272 .) A similar pronouncement was made in Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v.

Pacific Paving Co. v. Diggins

4 Cal. App. 240 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 15, 1906

(See Perry v. Quackenbush, 105 Cal. 305 , [ 38 Pac. 740 ], and cases cited.) ” (Sharp v. Bowie, 142 Cal. 462 , [ 76 Pac. 62 ].) … (Dam v. Zink, 112 Cal. 91 , [ 44 Pac. 331 ]; McCarthy v. Brown, 113 Cal. 15 , [ 45 Pac. 14 ] ; see, also, City Street Imp. Co. v. Babcock, 139 Cal. 690 , [ 73 Pac. 666 ]; Rauer v. Bradbury, 3 Cal.

Crowley v. City and County of San Francisco

64 Cal. App. 3d 450 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1976

These “meet and confer” sessions resulted in the adoption of legislative measures by both the board of supervisors and the San Francisco school board. … In that case, the California Supreme Court held that, under the provisions of the MeyersMilias-Brown Act (Gov.

Kidd v. State of California

62 Cal. App. 4th 386 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1998

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at pp. 183-184.) More recently, in State Personnel Bd. v. … (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d 168 , 182-183 & fn. 6; Mobilepark West Homeowners Assn. v.

Fox v. San Francisco Unified School District

111 Cal. App. 2d 885 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1952

City of San Gabriel, 20 Cal.2d 879 [ 129 P.2d 349 , 142 A.L.R. 1383 ]; Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., 26 Cal.2d 716 [ 160 P.2d 816 ] ; see, also, Gov. … (Nichols v. McCoy, 38 Cal.2d 447 [ 240 P.2d 569 ]; Brown v. County of Los Angeles, 77 Cal.App.2d 814 [176 P.2d 753]; Holder v. Key System, 88 Cal.App.2d 925 [ 200 P.2d 98 ]; Guntner v.

Cal-Western Reconveyance v. Brown CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2015

Filed 9/29/15 Cal-Western Reconveyance v. … (See Mann v.

Pope v. Superior Court

9 Cal. App. 3d 636 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1970

As was true of its predecessor, the state board of prison directors, the authority “is not required to proceed with the formality required of the courts.” … The board concluded “Subject denied charge, although admitted drinking and didn’t know what he was doing. Finally admitted joining in fight to help brother.”