Case law

Hughes v. Alexis

170 Cal. App. 3d 800 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1985

McCormick relayed that information to Officer Denise Brown, who arrived shortly after he did. … Officer Brown, the author of the sworn statement, did not testify.

Lipow v. Regents of the University of California

54 Cal. App. 3d 215 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1975

In Labor Board v. … (Labor Board v.

Griffiths v. Superior Court

117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 445 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2002

(Ke nneally v. Medical Board, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 499 .) … (Homestead Savings v. Darmiento (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 424, 435 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 367 ]; County of San Diego v. Brown (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 297, 306 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 483 ].)

Claypool v. Wilson

4 Cal. App. 4th 646 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1992

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 180-181 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 487 , 624 P.2d 1215 ], original italics.) … {Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d atp. 180 .)

Cota v. County of Los Angeles

105 Cal. App. 3d 282 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1980

(Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 542 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 21 , 432 P.2d 717 ]; County of Madera v. Glendron (1963) 59 Cal.2d 798, 804 [ 31 Cal. … (Ukhtomski v. Tioga Mutual Water Co., supra, 12 Cal.App.2d, p. 729; see Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton (1964) 61 Cal.2d 855, 859 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 395 P.2d 896 ]; Keith v.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES v. City of Stockton

161 Cal. App. 3d 813 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1984

to pay a $19 per employee premium increase and was justified in unilaterally deducting that amount from employee paychecks because in so doing it was merely maintaining the "status quo" as required by the Meyers-Milias-Brown … Section 3505 provides in pertinent part that "The governing body of a public agency, or such boards, commissions, administrative officers or other representatives as may be properly designated by law or by such governing

Alameda County Land Use Assn. v. City of Hayward

38 Cal. App. 4th 1716 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 1995

Soc. (1944) 23 Cal.2d 719, 728, 737 [ 146 P.2d 673 , 151 A.L.R. 1062 ]; Browning v. Aymard (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 277, 281 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 604 ].) … We also appreciate, as Pleasanton’s counsel explained during oral argument, why respondents did not seek the formation of a regional planning board (Gov.

L.A. County Employees Retirement Assn. v. County of L.A.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 2024

(Verceles v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 776, 783; see Brown v. … (See Board of Retirement v.

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 2019

Cohen (3d Cir. 1984) 733 F.2d 1059, 1070; Matter of Continental Illinois Securities Litigation (7th Cir. 1984) 732 F.2d 1302, 1308; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C (6th Cir. 1983) 710 F.2d 1165; Newman v. … Meyers-Milias Brown Act (MMBA) (Gov.

San Bernardino County Bd. of Supervisors v. Monell

California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 2023

(See Brown v. Francisco (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 413, 417 [county charter may fix supervisors’ compensation or may allow supervisors to do so].) … (Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 828-829.)

Harvey v. City of Holtville

252 Cal. App. 2d 595 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 1967

However, section 912 provided the petition to the superior court “shall be filed within 20 days after the application to the board [city council] is denied or deemed denied.” … Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Whelan, J., concurred.

Jackson v. Cal. State Personnel Board CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2024

Filed 10/30/24 Jackson v. Cal. … (Fout v. State Personnel Bd. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 817, 821.) On the other hand, we give no deference to the trial court’s determination of whether the Board abused its discretion. (Pollak v.

Hollendorfer v. California Horse Racing Board CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2024

(Badie v. … (See Medical Board v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1004-1105 [doctor had standing to challenge license suspension in effect when he filed his petition]; Rudisill v.

Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified School District

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2008

(Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 447 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 574 , 111 P.2d 610 ].) … (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 286-287 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d 840 ], new italics added, original italics omitted.)

Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. Valley Racing Ass'n

4 Cal. App. 4th 1538 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1992

As applied here, rather than “providing a new remedy for the enforcement of existing rights” ('Governing Board v. … The ideas of validity and remedy are inseparable, and both are parts of the obligation, which is guaranteed by the Constitution against invasion.’ ” ’ ” (Brown v. Ferdon (1936) 5 Cal.2d 226, 230 [ 54 P.2d 712 ].)

Jaramillo v. County of Orange

200 Cal. App. 4th 811 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 2011

(See Brown v. Grimes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 265, 274-275 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 893 ] (Brown) [noting differences among various appellate courts].) … (E.g., Brown, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 283 [“The unclean hands emanating from the Brown-Ross agreement did not directly affect or infect the relationship between Grimes and Brown and, most importantly, was not inequitable

Thomas v. Department of Motor Vehicles

97 Cal. App. 3d 12 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1979

I first observed the defendant’s vehicle, a brown Mercedes, westbound in the # 1 lane west of Fairfax. “Ref. Tillema: Ummmm hummn. “Off. … (See Bixby v. Pierno, supra, 4 Cal.3d 130 at pp. 144-147 ; Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., supra, 11 Cal.3d 28 at pp. 34, 45 .)

In Re Fain

145 Cal. App. 3d 540 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1983

Code, §§ 3040, 5077) committed entirely to the judgment and discretion of the Board. (People v. … Assn. v.

Welch v. Kai

4 Cal. App. 3d 374 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 1970

It becomes our duty to make our construction of the instrument “ ‘in accordance with the applicable principles of law.’ ” (Meyer v. State Board of Equalization, 42 Cal.2d 376, 381 [ 267 P.2d 257 ]; Leoke v. … (Palos Verdes Corp. v. Housing Authority, 202 Cal.App.2d 827, 835 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 225 ]; Schroeder v. Wilson, 89 Cal.App.2d 63, 66 [ 200 P.2d 173 ]; Mitchel v. Brown, 43 Cal.App.2d 217, 221 [ 110 P.2d 456 ].)

Meredith v. Marks

212 Cal. App. 2d 265 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1963

(See Welch v. Alcott, 185 Cal. 731, 754 [ 198 P. 626 ] ; Economy Home Builders, Inc. v. Berry, 95 Cal.App. 106, 111 [ 272 P. 307 ]; Brown v. … Brown, J., and Stone, J., concurred.