Case law

People v. Freeny

37 Cal. App. 3d 20 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1974

(See Horack v. Franchise Tax Board, 18 Cal.App.3d 363, 367 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 717 ].) … Those arguments were *32 resolved adversely to appellant’s position in Horack v. Franchise Tax Board, supra, 18 Cal.App.3d 363 . Horack is controlling here.

Scharf v. Regents of University of California

234 Cal. App. 3d 1393 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 1991

(Board of Trustees v. Superior Court, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d 516 .) … For example, in Board of Trustees v.

Hoang v. Medical Board of California CA3

California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 2024

(See, e.g., Governing Board v. … (Hughes v. Board of Architectural Examiners (1998) 17 Cal.4th 763, 788-789.)

Anton v. San Antonio Community Hospital

132 Cal. App. 3d 638 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1982

And as to that point he contends there has been an intervening change in the law announced by the decision in Applebaum v. Board of Directors (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 648 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 831 ]. … Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 84 ; Brown v.

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).

In Re Caswell

112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 462 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 2001

Respondent Steven Caswell (Caswell) was granted parole by appellant Board of Prison Terms (Board) in 1986, with a release date in September 2000. … Baxter, J., and Brown, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted. 1 Caswell requested we take judicial notice of the first 11 pages of the transcript of the 1985 parole hearing that he inadvertently omitted

Talmo v. Civil Service Commission

231 Cal. App. 3d 210 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1991

(Barber v. *227 State Personnel Bd. (1976) 18 Cal.3d 395, 404 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 556 P.2d 306 ]; Brown v. Gordon (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 659, 666 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 901 ].) … (Accord: Brown v. Gordon, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d 667 ; Schmitt v. City of Rialto (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 494, 501 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 788 ]; Chodur v.

People v. Coit Ranch, Inc.

204 Cal. App. 2d 52 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1962

State Personnel Board, 22 Cal.2d 198, 200 [ 137 P.2d 433 ] ; Clark v. State Personnel Board, 61 Cal.App.2d 800 [ 144 P.2d 84 ] ; Child v. State Personnel Board, 97 Cal.App.2d 467 [ 218 P.2d 52 ] ; United States v. … County of Los Angeles, 24 Cal.2d 267, 272 [ 148 P.2d 645 ]; Floresta, Inc. v. City Council, 190 Cal.App.2d 599, 612 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 182 ]). Nor do the cases of State Board of Dry Cleaners v.

City of San Diego v. Otay Municipal Water District

200 Cal. App. 2d 672 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 1962

(Whitmore v. Brown, 207 Cal. 473, 481 [ 279 P. 447 ] ; Taylor v. Cole, 201 Cal. 327, 333 [ 257 P. 40 ]; Adams v. Wolff, 84 Cal.App.2d 435, 440 [ 190 P.2d 665 ].) … (Stafford v. Los Angeles etc. Retirement Board, 42 Cal.2d 795, 799 [ 270 P.2d 12 ].)

People v. Smith

57 Cal. App. 4th 1470 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 1997

Brown did not tell Smith he could move through the police line, nor did Brown see any other officer motion Smith forward. As Officer Brown walked behind Smith’s car, he noticed the Porsche jerk forward once or twice. … It is not his aim to cause the people on board to perish, but he knows that success in his scheme will inevitably involve their deaths as a side-effect.”

Sneed v. County of Riverside

218 Cal. App. 2d 205 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 1963

Plaintiff filed his claim and it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County. … Johnson v.

Arroyo v. Regents of University

48 Cal. App. 3d 793 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1975

Perry v. Sindermann (1972) 408 U.S. 593 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 570 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 ]; Bekiaris v. Board of Education (1972) 6 Cal.3d 575 [ 100 Cal.Rptr. 16 , 493 P.2d 480 ].) … (Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 515, 519 , 91 S.Ct. 507 ], quoted in Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 572 [ 33 L.Ed.2d at p. 558 ].)

Farmer Bros. Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd.

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 390 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2003

. *981 v. … (Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court (Mar. 7, 2002, B156702).)

Elton v. County of Orange

3 Cal. App. 3d 1053 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1970

In Johnson v. … Code § 818.6; Sava v.

Caputo v. Municipal Court

184 Cal. App. 2d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 1960

In People v. … Board of Trustees, 74 Cal.App. 159 [ 239 P. 855 ].

Oakland Raiders v. NATIONAL FOORBALL LEAGUE

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 255 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2001

And facts relating to the structural bias common to corporate boards throughout America are also insufficient. (Aronson v. Lewis, supra, 473 A.2d at p. 815, fn. 8 ; cf. Kaplan v. … Seminaris v. Landa (Del.Ch. 1995) 662 A.2d 1350, 1353 [board’s appointment of a special litigation committee does not concede demand futility unless the board is not *591 independent].)

Geneneral Dynamics Corp. v. County of San Diego

108 Cal. App. 3d 132 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 1980

Opinion BROWN (Gerald), P. J. County’s Appeal Each year the county assessor must identify and value all local property for state taxation (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 601). … Dist. v. Garrison, 191 Cal. 680, 692 (1923); L.A. City School Dist. v. Landier Inv. Co., 177 Cal.App.2d 744, 755 (1960).

General Dynamics NASSCO v. Cal. OSHA Board CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 2026

Filed 4/2/26 General Dynamics NASSCO v. Cal. … We granted the Board’s request that we take judicial notice of 24 prior Board decisions after reconsideration. (See Evid. Code, §§ 451, subd. (a), 452, subd. (c), 459; United Assn. Local Union 246, AFL-CIO v.

McKamy v. Bd. of Tr. of Bakersfield

26 Cal. App. 315 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 1915

The proceeding is brought against the board of trustees of the city of Bakersfield; neither the court which rendered the decree, nor Dorris, the relator, being made a party herein. … See Camron v. Kenfield, 57 Cal. 550 ; Farmers’ Union v. Thresher, 62 Cal. 410 and Hobart v.

Charleville v. Metropolitan Trust Co. of California

136 Cal. App. 349 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 1934

In Mairo v. … (Meyer v. Haas, 126 Cal. 562 [ 58 Pac. 1042 ]; St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 73 Ark. 42 [3 Ann. Cas. 573, 83 S. W. 332 ]; Mullen v. Old Colony Ry. Co., 127 Mass. 86 [ 34 Am. Rep. 349 ].)