Case law

In re Hguyen

195 Cal. App. 4th 1020 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2011

The Governor’s decision is to be based upon the same factors the Board is required to consider. (Id. at pp. 625-626; Cal. Const., art. V, § 8, subd. … Since Governor Schwarzenegger vacated the Board’s grant of parole in this matter, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., has assumed the office of Governor upon his election.

Flynn v. Manson

19 Cal. App. 400 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1912

“In Urton v. … K Marsh. (8 Ky.) 457; Brown v. Town of Louisburg, 126 N. C. 701 , [ 78 Am. St. Rep. 677 , 36 S. E. 166 ]; El Paso & S. R. Co. v. Darr (Tex. Civ. App.), 93 S. W. 166 ; Ayer v. Ashmead, 31 Conn. 447 , [ 83 Am.

Wonderful Nurseries v. ALRB

California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 2025

F. of L. v. Labor Board (1940) 308 U.S. 401, 409.) … (See Weil & Brown, Cal.

Glenn v. Gibson

75 Cal. App. 2d 649 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 1, 1946

(Heame v. DeYoung, 119 Cal. 670 [ 52 P. 150, 499 ]; Kurata v. Los Angeles News Pub. Co., 4 Cal.App.2d 224, 227 [ 40 P.2d 520 ]; Mortensen v. Los Angeles Examiner, 112 Cal.App. 194, 203 [ 296 P. 927 ]; Skrocki v. … (Draper v. Hellman etc. Bank, 203 Cal. 26, 42-43 [ 263 P. 240 ]; Davis v.

Goodman v. County of Riverside

140 Cal. App. 3d 900 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1983

The debt need not be bonded debt (County of Shasta v. County of Trinity (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 30, 39 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 18 ]), nor need it be expressed as a particular, concrete sum (Carman v. … (Noroian v. Department of Administration (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 651, 655 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 889 ].)

Howard v. County of Amador

220 Cal. App. 3d 962 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1990

(Bret Harte Inn, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (1976) 16 Cal.3d 14, 23 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 154 , 544 P.2d 1354 ]; Board of Supervisors v. Archer (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 717, 724 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 379 ].) … The County asserts that the board was acting as a board of equalization and, in fact, the board purported to be sitting as a board of equalization.

Sites v. Superior Court

103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 432 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2001

In August 1998 the rent board issued a decision requiring Rosenbledt to make repairs to the building and to abate the noticed violation. … Conversely, when the appellate division acts within its jurisdiction, even though it acts erroneously, certiorari does not lie. ( Brown Co. v.

Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom, Inc. v. Ensher

210 Cal. App. 2d 184 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1962

(Williams v. Kidd, 170 Cal. 631 [ 151 P. 1 , Ann. Cas. 1916E 703] ; Donohue v. Sweeney, 171 Cal. 388 [ 153 P. 708 ] ; De Cou v. … (Sprague v.

Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2025

Johnson showed Williamson the Brown email, and Williamson read it. On February 3, 2022, Sims sent a letter to Shepardson. Citing Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981) 449 U.S. 383, Commodity Futures Trading Com. v. … The ruling concluded that Caltrans had made a showing that the Brown email was covered by the attorney- client privilege. Citing Upjohn Co. v.

Chappell v. Palmer

236 Cal. App. 2d 34 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1965

National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197 [ 59 S.Ct. 206 , 83 L.Ed. 126 ].) … J., and Brown (R.M.), J., concurred.

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, ETC. v. Schwarzenegger

182 Cal. App. 4th 1424 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 2010

The authority to determine staffing needs is vested in the SCIF board and not the Governor, consistent with SCIF's structure as a "quasi-governmental entity" mandated to be self-sufficient. ( Tricor California, Inc. v. … Dills Act." ( Tirapelle v. Davis, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1322-1323.)

White v. Cal. Victim Compensation Board CA2/7

California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2021

Filed 11/17/21 White v. Cal. … (Juen v.

The Pillsbury Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd.

21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 2004

(United States v. … (See, e.g., Foglesong v. C.I,R., supra, 621 F.2d at p. 868 ; Ferguson v. C.I.R. (9th Cir. 1999) 174 F.3d 997 .)

People v. Sands

California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 2021

(People v. … We review the constitutional question independently (Samples v. Brown (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 787, 799) and find no violation of equal protection. 1.

Spitzer v. Superior Court

74 Cal. App. 494 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1925

Baldwin, 136 Cal. 565 [ 69 Pac. 259 ]; Brown v. … Railroad Commission, 189 Cal. 228 [ 207 Pac. 903]; High on *500 Extraordinary Remedies, sec. 772; McGregor v. Board of Trustees, 159 Cal. 441, 447 [ 114 Pac. 566 ]; Kinard v. Police Court, 2 Cal.

Cummings v. Morez

42 Cal. App. 3d 66 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1974

However, since the California Supreme Court in Brown v. … Pending appeal, Brown v. Merlo was decided.

Crawford v. HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION

121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 96 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2002

Board of Education, supra, 17 Cal.3d 280 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 551 P.2d 28 ; Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 487 P.2d 1241 , San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. … (See Tuttle v. Arlington County School Board (4th Cir.1999) 195 F.3d 698 , 706.)

Star Ins. Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board CA6

California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2016

Co. v. … Star Insurance Company v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board H042244

People v. Bradford

65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 548 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 2007

With respect to the writings on the board, Judge Thompson stated, “[W]e have a big easel in there—we have a big white board where you can put the ink on and erase it. … (See Brown v. State (Minn. 2004) 682 N.W.2d 162, 168 (Brown) [“Virtually all jurisdictions agree that it is error for the judge to visit the jury room during deliberations”].)

People v. Davis

188 Cal. App. 2d 718 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1961

(People v. King, 175 Cal.App.2d 386, 390 [ 346 P.2d 235 ].) … Once the door was opened, Officer Brown noticed the cigarette lying in open view. To see that which is in plain sight is not a search. (People v. Murphy, 173 Cal.App.2d 367, 377 [ 343 P.2d 273 ]; People v.