Case law

Jenkins v. Inglewood Unified School District

34 Cal. App. 4th 1388 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1995

(See Kenworthy v. Brown (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 298, 302 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 461 ].) … Barthuli v.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Walls

178 Cal. App. 2d 284 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 1960

State Board of Optometry, 35 Cal.App.2d 428 [ 95 P.2d 959 ]; Beloin v. … Zylstra, 5 Cal.App.2d 297, 300 [ 42 P.2d 685 ] ; Davis v. Renton, 113 Cal.App. 561, 564-565 [ 298 P. 834 ]; People v. Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577, 585-586 [ 320 P.2d 5 ].)

City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3

73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 159 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2008

Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 177 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 487 , 624 P.2d 1215 .) … Public Employment Relations Bd. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 799, 804 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 671 , 750 P.2d 313 , quoting Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 198 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 487 , 624 P.2d 1215 .)

White v. Davis

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 691 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 2002

Brown, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 1283 ; Walsh v. … (Walsh v. Board of Administration, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 699.)

Kennedy v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2019

Furthermore, an automatic stay would impede the Board’s discharge of its duty to “protect the public against incompetent, impaired, or negligent physicians.” (Arnett v. Dal Cielo (1996) 14 Cal.4th 4, 7.) … Kennedy v.

Schettler v. County of Santa Clara

74 Cal. App. 3d 990 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1977

I, § 10, cl. 2; Brown v. Maryland (1827) 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 [ 6 L.Ed. 678 ]; Low v. Austin (1871) 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 29 [ 20 L.Ed. 517 ]; Simon v. … Dockweiler, supra, 14 Cal.2d at pp. 449-450; Veterans’ Welfare Board v. Jordan, supra, 189 Cal. 124, 145 ; Community Television of So. Cal. v.

People v. Shepeard

169 Cal. App. 3d 580 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1985

Chairman Ray Brown’s communication to the sentencing court herein described the process: First, an “automated sentence review” 4 indicated that the sentence imposed on appellant warranted further scrutiny by the Board; next … In People v.

Riaz v. Dental Board of California CA5

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2025

Filed 9/25/25 Riaz v. … (Id. at p. 1346; see Fukuda v.

Hodcarriers, Building & Common Laborers Local v. Miller

243 Cal. App. 2d 391 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1966

BROWN, P. J. An intraunion controversy resulted in a judgment awarding cross-complainant John L. Miller $7,960.73 damages against the union and its officers, R. R. Richardson and Rudolph M. … (Jones v. Green, 74 Cal. App.2d 223, 231 [ 168 P.2d 418 ].)

Warren Brothers Co. v. Boyle

42 Cal. App. 246 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1919

(Vale v. … (Contra Costa Water Co. v. Breed, supra; Higgins v. San Diego Water Co., 118 Cal. 555 , [ 45 Pac. 824 , 50 Pac. 670 ]; Brown v. Board of Education, 103 Cal. 534 , [ 37 Pac. 503 ].) The judgment is reversed.

Families Unafraid To Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. El Dorado County Board of Supervisors

79 Cal. App. 4th 505 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2000

County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1335, 1339-1341 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ] (Future I).) … The homeowner successfully sued to get the local planning board to consider its own guidelines in approving the building permit.

Social Services Union v. County of San Diego

158 Cal. App. 3d 1126 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 1984

The County of San Diego (County) and its Board of Supervisors (Board), cumulatively and individually, appeal judgments granting peremptory writs of mandate forcing the County to provide employees represented by the Social … Further, the agreements provided: “In addition, any other day of national mourning or celebration provided that it has been proclaimed by the Board of Supervisors, and provided that the Board directs the closure of County

Los Angeles Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers & Bartenders v. Stan's Drive-Ins, Inc.

136 Cal. App. 2d 89 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 1955

(Verdier v. Verdier, 121 Cal.App.2d 190, 193 [ 263 P.2d 57 ].) The rule with respect to orders and judgments is that the entire record may be examined to determine their scope and effect (Downs v. … (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd., 29 Cal.2d 228, 240 [ 174 P.2d 441 ] ; Popcorn *95 Equipment Co. v. Page, 92 Cal.App.2d 448, 451 [ 207 P.2d 647 ].) No such showing is made in the present instance.

McFall v. Madera Unified School District

222 Cal. App. 3d 1228 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 1990

Opinion BROWN (G. A.), J. * Wallace L. … As noted in Jones v.

East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Sindelar

16 Cal. App. 3d 910 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 14, 1971

Dist. v. Browne (1932) 216 Cal. 269, 273-274 [ 13 P.2d 921 ]; Clough v. … Dist. v. Browne, supra, 216 Cal. 269 at pp. 273-274 ; Clough v. Duffy, supra, 152 Cal. 311 atp. 314; Mills v. S. F. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., supra, 261 Cal.App.2d 666 at pp. 668-669 ; Behneman v.

Friends of the Eel River v. N. Coast RR. Auth.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 2014

Plaintiffs, who were members of the public, filed an action for violation of the Brown Act and breach of contract, alleging the nonprofit corporation’s board of directors had not followed appropriate Brown Act procedures … (New York v. United States (1992) 505 U.S. 144, 155-156; see Board of County Comrs. v. U.S. E.E.O.C. (10th Cir. 2005) 405 F.3d 840, 847, 850.)

People v. City of Los Angeles

62 Cal. App. 781 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 1923

v. … Board of Supervisors, 124 Cal. 278 [ 57 Pac. 82 ], is authority for the rule that “the adoption of the order is a determination by the board that the public interest or convenience requires the improvement.”

International Assn. of Fire Fighters v. County of Merced

204 Cal. App. 2d 387 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 1962

In National Labor Relations Board v. … As is said in National Labor Relations Board v.

James Eva Estate v. Oakland B. M. Co.

40 Cal. App. 515 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1919

Dec. 300 ]; Morgan v. Board of Education, 136 Cal. 245 , 247, [ 68 P. 703 ]; Brown v. Board of Education, 103 Cal. 531 , 534, [ 37 P. 503 ].) [5] With the above principles in mind, we take up the record before us. … Under such general powers a corporation may, in furtherance of its own interests, extend financial aid to its customers. ( Armour Co. v.

In Re the Marriage of Nice

230 Cal. App. 3d 444 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1991

(Waite v. Waite (1972) 6 Cal.3d 461, 473 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 325 , 492 P.2d 13 ]; Bowman v. Bowman, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d 148, 152 .) … (In re Marriage of Brown (1976) 15 Cal.3d 838, 848, fn. 10 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 544 P.2d 561 , 94 A.L.R.3d 164 ].)