Case law

Brown v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

79 Cal. App. 2d 613 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1947

(Smith v. Whittier, 95 Cal. 279, 296 [ 30 P. 529 ] ; Story v. Nidiffer, 146 Cal. 549, 551 [ 80 P. 692 ] ; Fitts v. Mission Health etc. Shop, 58 Cal.App. 362, 365 [ 208 P. 691 ] ; Harris v. … . *618 173; Goddard v. Berlin Mills Co., Goddard v. Brown Co., 82 N.H. 225, 229 [ 131 A. 601 ] ; Thweatt v. Ocean A. & G. Corp. (Tex.Civ.App.), 62 S.W.2d 250, 254 ; Magnolia Pet. Co. v.

California Society of Anesthesiologists v. Brown

204 Cal. App. 4th 390 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2012

(Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 725 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ]; see In re Marriage of Hobdy (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 360, 366 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 104 ]; Cornette v. … Harris v.

Brown v. Memorial National Home Foundation

158 Cal. App. 2d 448 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1958

Lyon v. … (McCarthy v. Tally, 46 Cal.2d 577 [ 297 P.2d 981]; West v. Parker, 97 Cal.App.2d 286 [ 217 P.2d 473 ]; Weygandt v. Larson, 130 Cal.App. 304 [19 P.2d 852]; Caminetti v. Imperial Mut. Life Ins.

Clement v. Reclamation Board

89 Cal. App. 2d 115 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1948

(Jarkieh v. Badagliacco, 68 Cal.App.2d 426, 431 [ 156 P.2d 969 ].) At the time of the present motion to dismiss the appeal the settled transcripts were filed.

Covino v. Governing Board

76 Cal. App. 3d 314 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1977

Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ]; see also Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 514 P.2d 1224 ]; California Sch. Employees Assn. v. … (Coffey v. Governing Board, supra, at p. 293.)

Brown v. Allied Corrugated Box Co.

91 Cal. App. 3d 477 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 1979

Venables v. Credential Ins. Agency. … (See Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co. (1969) 1 Cal.3d 93 . 111. 117 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 592 . 460 P.2d 464 ]: Brown v.

Baughman v. Medical Board

40 Cal. App. 4th 398 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1995

(Evans v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 970 .) 3 Due process of law does not require actual notice, but only a method reasonably certain to accomplish that end. … (Evans v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at pp. 967, 971.)

Brown v. Friesleben Estate Co.

148 Cal. App. 2d 720 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1957

Brown v. City of Los Angeles

267 Cal. App. 2d 849 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1968

(County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.2d 839, 844-846 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 796 , 402 P.2d 868 ] ; Heieck & Moran v. City of Modesto, 64 Cal.2d 229, 231-232 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 411 P.2d 105 ].)

O'TOOLE v. Retirement Board

139 Cal. App. 3d 600 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1983

(Harmon v. Board of Retirement (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 689, 691-692 [ 133 Cal.Rptr. 154 ].) … In Barber v.

Brown v. Memorial National Home Foundation

162 Cal. App. 2d 513 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1958

Though designated as interlocutory, this court held the judgment to be final for purposes of appeal (Brown v. Memorial Nat. etc. Foundation, 158 Cal.App.2d 448 [ 322 P.2d 600 ]). … People v.

Lorig v. Medical Board

92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 862 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 2000

(See Kurtz v. Calvo (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 191, 193 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 ]; Murphy v. Padilla (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 707, 711 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 ].) … (See Pettus v. Cole, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at pp. 448-449.)

County of Riverside v. Brown

29 Cal. App. 2d 334 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1938

In Rasmussen v. Fresno Traction Co., 11 Cal. … (Brown v. Gow, 126 Cal. App. 113 [ 14 Pac. (2d) 322 ] ; Ross v. Mahoney, 134 Cal. App. 199 [ 25 Pac. (2d) 268 ]; Barr v. Hall, 9 Cal. App. (2d) 426 [ 49 Pac. (2d) 1124 ].)”

Levingston v. Retirement Board

38 Cal. App. 4th 996 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1995

Thus, *1001 Lindell Co. v. … Jaffee v.

Brown v. County of Los Angeles

203 Cal. App. 4th 1529 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 2012

of Psychology (hereafter Board of Psychology or Board), that Brown understood she had to obtain such a license but failed to do so, and that she was discharged from her employment for failure to obtain a license. … We need only determine whether the statutory exemption applied at the time Brown was discharged from her employment, and we conclude that it did not. 8 V.

Pompilio v. Kosmo, Cho & Brown

39 Cal. App. 4th 1324 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1995

. *1326 Plaintiffs Michael and Annabelle Pompilio appeal a judgment dismissing their legal malpractice action against their former attorneys, Duane Skavdahl and Kosmo, Cho & Brown. … limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. 1 Facts On October 6, 1994, plaintiffs Michael and Annabelle Pompilio filed a legal malpractice action against their former attorneys, Duane Skavdahl and Kosmo, Cho & Brown

Brown v. Northern California Power Co.

14 Cal. App. 651 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1910

The witness Brown testified that the posts along there (the Eggerstedt place) were leaning to the east after the power line went *657 through. … (See People v. Ruef, ante, p. 621 [ 114 Pac. 48 ], this day decided.)

Brown v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles

California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2026

(People v. … (a); Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 569.) “The procedural component of the due process clause ensures a fair adjudicatory process before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property. [Citations.]

Brown v. City of Los Angeles

125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 474 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 2002

Pursuant to Los Angeles City Charter section 202, 1 Brown was ordered to appear at a hearing before the Department’s Board of Rights (Board of Rights), which is empowered to conduct a hearing and render recommendations to … .; see also Pipkin v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 652, 658 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 502 ].)

Barton v. Governing Board

60 Cal. App. 3d 476 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1976

Appellant relies on cases which are not in point: Hentschke v. … The board’s discretionary power is encumbered only by the requirement of timely notice. Netwig v. Huntington Beach Union High Sch.