Case law

Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 2019

While a finding of prejudice is required before nullifying the Board’s action (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. … “[T]he Brown Act is a remedial statute that must be construed liberally so as to accomplish its purpose.” (Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Business Improvement Dist. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 862, 869.)

Walberg v. Underwood

39 Cal. App. 748 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1919

Brown, another defendant in the action in which the injunction was sought, was also present in person. … (McLeran v. Shartzer, 5 Cal. 70 , [ 63 Am. Dec. 84 ]; Reynolds v. Harris, 14 Cal. 667 , [ 76 Am. Dec. 459 ]; Millard v. Hathaway, 27 Cal. 119 ; Shay v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 541 ; Acock v.

Kayfetz v. State of California

156 Cal. App. 3d 491 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1984

County of Los Angeles (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 134 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 482 ] [§ 821.6 bars actions for damages from negligent autopsy and subsequent prosecution for murder]; Brown v. … (Royer v.

Briney v. Santa Ana High School District

131 Cal. App. 357 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 1933

Respondent relies upon section 1962 of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 1635 of the Civil Code, McCormick Lumber Co. v. Highland School Dist., 26 Cal. App. 641 [ 147 Pac. 1183, 1184 ], Brown v. … (Goldsmith v. Board, of Education, 63 Cal. App. 141 [ 218 Pac. 296 ]; Anderson v. Scranton, 111 Cal. App. 322 [ 295 Pac. 544 ] ; Morris v. Board of Education, 119 Cal. App. 750 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 364 ]; Saxton v.

Burns v. the Valley Bank

94 Cal. App. 254 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 1928

This action was brought in the court below by the respondent as assignee of Leo V. … App. 373 [ 105 Pac. 130 ]; Countryman v. California Trona Co., 35 Cal. App. 728 [ 170 Pac. 1069 ]; Brown v. Crown Gold Mining Co., 150 Cal. 376, 387 [ 89 Pac. 86 ]; Jan Wai v. Smith Riddell Co., 55 Cal.

Mooradian v. State Personnel Board CA5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2026

However, he does cite to two cases that discuss relevant standards of review applicable to cases before the SPB—Thaxton v. State Personnel Board (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 681, 691–692 (Thaxton) and Cate v. … (Barber v. State Personnel Board (1976) 18 Cal.3d 395, 403 (Barber).) 18.

Lopez v. State Personnel Board CA3

California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2026

Filed 3/30/26 Lopez v. … State Personnel Bd., supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 139, quoting Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) 391 U.S. 563, 568.) “The proper balance to be struck is a question of law for the court.”

Community Action Agency of Butte County v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · May 27, 2022

Brown Act (§ 54950 et seq.) (Brown Act). (See, e.g., McKee v. … executive council were “legislative bodies” as defined by the Brown Act]; Torres v.

In Re Jantz

162 Cal. App. 3d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1984

Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Wiener, J., concurred. … He is in the control of the board and subject to its rules, although otherwise at liberty.’” (People v. Denne (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 499, 507-508 [ 297 P.2d 451 ]; People v.

Anderson v. Market Street Railway Co.

116 Cal. App. 282 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1931

(Brown v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 167 Cal. 199 [ 138 Pac. 1005 ]; Arnold v. San Francisco-Oakland Rys., 175 Cal. 1 [ 164 Pac. 798 ] ; Larrabee v. Western Pac. Ry. Co., 173 Cal. 743 [ 161 Pac. 750 ]; Young v. … As was said in Brown v. Pacific Elec. Ry.

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

California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 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.

Rios v. Bennett

88 Cal. App. 2d 919 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1948

The rule as stated in Sanker v. … (Watkins v. Nutting, 17 Cal.2d 490, 495 [ 110 P.2d 384 ]; Brannock, v. Bromley, 30 Cal.App.2d 516, 524 [ 86 P.2d 1062 ].) In Foti v.

Malaga County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2020

v. … State Personnel Bd. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1151, 1158 (Brown).)

Valencia v. San Jose Scavenger Co.

21 Cal. App. 2d 469 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1937

Atlas Taxicab & Auto Service Co., 187 Cal. 523 [ 202 Pac. 870 ], and Brown v. Davis, 84 Cal. App. 180 [ 257 Pac. 877 ]. … As said in Curran v. Earle C. Anthony, Inc., 77 Cal.

Corporation of America v. Durham Mutual Water Co.

50 Cal. App. 2d 337 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 1942

The board’s superintendent, George C. … (Brown v. Town of Sebastopol, 153 Cal. 704 [ 96 Pac. 363 , 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 178] ; Sacramento County v. Southern Pac. Co., 127 Cal. 217 [ 59 Pac. 568, 825 ] ; and also Meyer v. State Land Settlement Board, 99 Cal.

Department of Personnel Administration v. Superior Court

5 Cal. App. 4th 155 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1992

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 177 .) … (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 178 , italics added.)

In Re Jennings

133 Cal. App. 3d 373 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1982

(In re Brown, supra, 136 Cal.App.2d at pp. 43-44.) Respondent argues that it was Ethan’s burden to show inability to pay as an affirmative defense, and that, under Brown and Bailey v. … (Tilghman v.

Derivi Construction & Architecture, Inc. v. Wong

118 Cal. App. 4th 1268 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2004

The Wongs were represented by the law firm Herum Crabtree Brown. DCA moved to disqualify the Herum Crabtree Brown law firm. … Ahmanson & Co. v.

Healdsburg Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Healdsburg

57 Cal. App. 3d 444 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1976

Board of Supervisors, supra at p. 782; Ball v. City Council, supra at p. 141 ; Humbert v. Castro Valley County Fire Protection Dist. (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 1, 13 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 158 ]; Cozzolino v. … Board of Supervisors, supra at p. 778; Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499, 503-505 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 401 , 421 P.2d 409 ]; Rosenfield v.

Jones v. Omnitrans

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 706 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2004

Phillips appealed the determination to the State Personnel Board. The board dismissed the appeal without a hearing. … Similarly, Brown v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 155, 172-173 , footnote 10, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 474 and Giuffre v.