Case law

People v. Adult World Bookstore

108 Cal. App. 3d 404 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 1980

Committee v. Brown (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 879, 887-888 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 915 ].) The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction will be reversed on appeal only if there is demonstrated a clear abuse of discretion. (Ibid.) … Although it is a civil action, it is penal when contrasted with nuisance actions brought under the Civil Code (Board of Supervisors v.

Almar Ltd. v. County of Ventura

56 Cal. App. 4th 105 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 1997

(Towne v. Eisner (1918) 245 U.S. 418, 425 [ 38 S.Ct. 158, 159 , 62 L.Ed. 372 ]; see also e.g., Pearson v. State Social Welfare Board *107 (1960) 54 Cal.2d 184, 195 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 553 , 353 P.2d 33 ].) … (Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 724 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ]; People v. Buena Vista Mines, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1034 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 21 ].)

Koster v. County of San Joaquin

47 Cal. App. 4th 29 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 1996

(Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc. v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at p. 744 .) … Lee v.

Kinner v. Governing Bd. Orange County School Dist. CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2015

(Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1443.) Brown’s Alleged Bias Kinner contends Brown had a history of animus toward her. … Co. v.

Gordon v. Hillman

47 Cal. App. 571 · California Court of Appeal · May 19, 1920

(Board of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521 , [ 21 L. Ed. 687 , see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes]; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 , [ 24 L. Ed. 565 ]; Renaud v. Abbott, 116 U. S. 217 , [ 29 L. Ed. 629 , 6 Sup. … (Knowles v. Logansport etc. 19 Wall. 58 , [ 22 L. Ed. 70 ]; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 439 , [ 34 L. Ed. 1054 , 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 369]; Brown v. Fletcher, 210 U. S. 82 , [ 52 L. Ed. 966 , 28 Sup. Ct.

Ciancanelli v. Cal. State Bd. of Control

248 Cal. App. 2d 705 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1967

The State Board of Control allowed petitioner the sum of $5,000 in full settlement of his claim, refusing to recommend to the California Legislature that it make an appropriation of $25,000. … The board further determined that the extent of pecuniary loss sustained by petitioner was in excess of $5,000.

Social Workers Union Local 535 v. County of Los Angeles

270 Cal. App. 2d 65 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 1969

The trouble with .this, position is that under Tevis v. … Under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov.

Gray v. Little

97 Cal. App. 442 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1929

(Sharpe v. Allender, 170 Fed. 589 ; Page v. More, 179 Fed. 988 .) … (Bassett v. Evans, *447 253 Fed. 522 ; City National Bank v. Slocum, 272 Fed. 11 ; Homan v. Hirsch, 106 Or. 982 [ 211 Pac. 795 ].)

Bertsch v. Mammoth Community Water District

247 Cal. App. 4th 1201 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 2016

(King v. … Mason, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 550, quoting Record v. Reason, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 482), the most obvious risk of injury coming from the prospect of falling off the board.

Goldstein v. Lees

46 Cal. App. 3d 614 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1975

Proc., § 284; Fracasse v. Brent, 6 Cal.3d 784, 790 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 494 P.2d 9 ].) The board of directors, not corporate counsel, has the right to control the affairs of the corporation. (Corp. Code, § 800.) … Hutton & Company v. Brown, (S.D.Tex. 1969) 305 F.Supp. 371, 393 , citing Big Bear Mun. Water Dist. v. Superior Court, 269 Cal.App.2d 919 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 580 ] Earl Scheib, Inc. v.

Boling v. Public Employment Relations Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 2019

(Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors (1994) 8 Cal.4th 765, 777 (Voters).) … The Proponents contend the issue is not moot because their exclusion from the administrative proceedings violated Perry v. Brown (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1116 (Perry).

McNickels v. Richmond Unified School District

11 Cal. App. 3d 1209 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 1970

In Riebe v. … In Johnson v. United States, 163 F. 30, 32 , the court said: “. .

People v. Capelli

55 Cal. App. 461 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1921

W 920]; State v. Brown, 19 Fla. 563, 598 ; State v. Barber, 19 S. D. 1 [ 101 N. W. 1078, 1081 ]; Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 146; In re O'Brien, 29 Mont. 530, 546 [1 Ann. Cas. 373, 75 Pac. 196 ]; Boyd v. … (See, also, Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379 ; People v. Todd, 23 Cal. 181 ; Maclay v. Love, 25 Cal. 367 ; People v. Whyler, 41 Cal. 351 ; Ex parte Gerino, 143 Cal. 412 [66 L. R.

Transamerica Corp. v. Parrington

115 Cal. App. 2d 346 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1953

Co. v. Brown, 253 U.S. 101 [ 40 S.Ct. 460 , 64 L.Ed. 803 ], the Supreme Court of the United States says: “An option is a privilege given by the owner of property to another, to buy the property at his election. … As was said in Halsey v.

People v. Quinonez

California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 2020

(In re Manuel G. (1997) 16 Cal.4th at p. 814, italics added; Smith, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 240; People v. Brown (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 140, 151 (Brown).) … (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 19.)  See footnote, ante, page 1. 28.

City & County of SF v. All Persons Interested in Matter of Prop. G

California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 2021

(c); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “Rulings on motions for summary judgment are reviewed de novo.” (Brown v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 841, 850.) … Nowak bases this argument on Boling v. Public Employee Relations Board (2018) 5 Cal.5th 898 (Boling).

Mays v. Wann

96 Cal. App. 760 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1929

(Stoops v. Pistachio, 70 Cal. App. 772 [ 234 Pac. 423 ].) Such amendments may be made to a complaint either during the trial or after the evidence is all in. (Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 365 [ 51 Pac. 549, 955 ]; Brown v. … (Koch v. Wilcoxon, 30 Cal. App. 520 [ 158 Pac. 1048 ] ; Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554 [ 74 Pac. 44 ].)

Donian v. Danielian

90 Cal. App. 675 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1928

(Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554 [ 74 Pac. 44 ].) It would seem obvious that the amendment as to when the action was commenced was not such a matter of substance as to change the cause of action. … (Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 365 [ 51 Pac. 549, 955 ]; Brown v. Hurst, 1 Cal. App. 752 [ 82 Pac. 1056 ].) An amendment to conform to the proof may always be made, provided the cause of action is not thereby changed.”

El Dorado County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. County of El Dorado

244 Cal. App. 4th 950 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 2016

“The [Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)] applies to local government employees in California. [Citation.] … In Highland Ranch v.

California State Council of Carpenters v. Superior Court

11 Cal. App. 3d 144 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1970

(Grunwald-Marx, Inc. v. L.A. Joint Board, supra, 52 Cal.2d 568, 576 .) … (Grunwald-Marx, Inc. v. L.A. Joint Board, 52 Cal.2d 568, 590 .)