Case law

Maughan v. GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 861 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 2006

(See, e.g., Wint v. … (See, e.g., Navellier v.

Deepwell Homeowners'protective Assn. v. City Council of City of Palm Springs

239 Cal. App. 2d 63 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 24, 1965

Co. v. Contractors’ etc. Board, supra, p. 6.) It is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that substantial questions will be raised upon the appeal (id., p. 6). … Brown (Gerald), P.

Provident Land Corp. v. Provident Irrigation District

22 Cal. App. 2d 105 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 20, 1937

No showing is made of what is an inadequate consideration, and no showing of any specific acts constituting refusals on the part of the board of directors as herein alleged. As stated in the case of Kelsey v. … In the case of Brown v.

People v. Brown CA3

California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 2022

Nos. 19FE021164, 20FE002988) v. ISAAC FOSTER BROWN, Defendant and Appellant. … Brown indicated his acceptance of that.

Retired Public Employees' Ass'n v. Board of Administration of Public Employees' Retirement System

184 Cal. App. 3d 378 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 12, 1986

The Board was granted a judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the relief requested cannot be granted as a matter of law, relying upon Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, supra. This appeal followed. … (Valenzuela v. Kraft, Inc. (9th Cir. 1984) 739 F.2d 434 , accord Dyer v. Greif Bros., Inc. (9th Cir. 1985) 755 F.2d 1391 .) Valenzuela, following Gulf Offshore Co. v.

Seguros La Provincial, S.A. v. Fremont Indemnity Co.

138 Cal. App. 3d 923 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 1983

Section 11580.1, Subdivision (g) 2 Does Not Violate the Public Policy of the State of California Fremont relies on Brown v. … Exchange v. Cocking, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 389; Cooper v. Bray, supra, 21 Cal.3d at 848 ; Newland v. Board of Governors, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 711 .)

Ponce v. Graceous Navigation, Inc.

126 Cal. App. 3d 823 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1981

Brown v. … (Brown v. Kayler, supra, 273 F.2d 588, 592 ; Wilson v. Northwest Marine Iron Works, supra, 212 F.2d 510, 511 .)

San Luis Rey Racing, Inc. v. California Horse Racing Board

California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 2017

Inc. v. … In Doe v.

Chaffee v. San Francisco Library Commission

9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2004

(See Agnew v. … The Brown Act’s statement of intent provides: “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the

City & County of San Francisco v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39

60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 516 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2007

Appellant relies on Rojo v. … Finally, the City relies on United Teachers of Ukiah v. Board of Education (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 632, 638-639 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 499 ] (United Teachers), *947 and Wygant v.

Hazelton v. City of San Diego

183 Cal. App. 2d 131 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1960

(Miller & Lux v. Board of Supervisors, 189 Cal. 254 [ 208 P. 304 ]; City of Anaheim v. City of Fullerton, 102 Cal.App.2d 395, 401 [ 227 P.2d 494 ] ; County of San Mateo v. … (Coe v. City of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.App. 479 [ 183 P. 822 ] ; Crowl v. Board of Trustees, 109 Cal.App. 214 [ 292 P. 985 ] ; Keech v. Joplin, 157 Cal. 1, 14 [ 106 P. 222 ]; 13 A.L.R.2d 1279 , 1284.)

Brown v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 2025

Filed 6/27/25 Brown v. … In support of this conclusion, the court cited Gallo v.

Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics

129 Cal. App. 2d 844 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1954

In Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters, supra, 29 Cal.2d 34 , the Supreme Court reversed a judgment entered from the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. … Brown, 85 Cal. 205, 206 [ 24 P. 715 ].)

Hallinan v. Mellon

218 Cal. App. 2d 342 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1963

Pensions v. Board of Supervisors (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 658 [ 205 P.2d 761 ], a taxpayer challenged propriety of payment by a county board of supervisors of “dues” to the County Supervisors Association. Wirin v. … In Brown v.

Sanchez v. Brown Automotive CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2021

Filed 4/26/21 Sanchez v. … V.

Lehane v. City & County of San Francisco

30 Cal. App. 3d 1051 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1972

Opinion BROWN (H. C.), J. … Street, 367 U.S. 740 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 , 81 S.Ct. 1784 ], and Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1191 , 81 S.Ct. 1826 ], In Machinists v.

Larkin v. WCAB

California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 2014

ADJ7191871) v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: petition for writ of review. … (Silver v. Brown (1966) 63 Cal.2d 841, 845 [48 Cal.Rptr. 609, 409 P.2d 689].)” (Rehman, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 587.)

Berkeley Unified School District v. City of Berkeley

141 Cal. App. 2d 841 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1956

This proposition was firmly established in Whitmore v. Brown, 207 Cal. 473, 480 [ 279 P. 447 ]. … Respondents cite the case of Board of Education of Sacramento v.

Wenzler v. Municipal Court for the Pasadena Judicial District

235 Cal. App. 2d 128 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 1965

(Peck v. Board of Supervisors, 90 Cal. 384 [ 27 P. 301 ] ; Valley Motor Lines, Inc. v. Riley, 22 Cal.App.2d 233 [ 70 P.2d 672 ] ; Bandini Estate Co. v. Payne, 10 Cal.App.2d 623, 625 [ 52 P.2d 959 ] ; Brown v. … The other is that the duty which the writ of mandamus enforces is not the contractual duty of the entity, but the official duty of the respondent officer or board. Thus in Black v.

DERIVI CONST. & ARCHITECTURE, INC. v. Wong

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 329 · 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. … Three of the individual plaintiffs moved to disqualify defendant's counsel on the basis that counsel's wife, a judge, had been a member of the foundation's board of directors and thus had received confidential information