Case law

Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano

5 Cal. App. 4th 351 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1992

Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15151 ; 7 Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 862 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 575 ].) … (McQueen v Board of Directors, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 1146 .)

Inter Mountain Mortgage, Inc. v. Sulimen

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 790 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2000

Escuda processed the Brown loan. … (Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 296 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 510 , 907 P.2d 358 ].) An employee’s actions need not benefit the employer (id., at p. 297; Bailey v.

Spencer v. Barnes

25 Cal. App. 139 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1914

(See Pettingill v. Jones, 28 Kan. 535 ; Meason v. Kaine, 63 Pa. St. 335; Myers v. Winn, 16 Ill. 135 .) … (Pennington v. Todd, 47 N. J. Eq. 569, [ 24 Am. St. Rep. 419 , 11 L. R. A. 589, 21 Atl. 297 ].) In the case of Jones v.

Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court

89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 560 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 1999

Brown et al. … Assn. v.

Sayta v. Chu

California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2017

(People v. … board.”

Ridgecrest Charter School v. Sierra Sands Unified School District

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 648 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 2005

(See Monzon v. … (California Assn. for Safety Education v. Brown (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1274-1275 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 404 ].) We also deny CCSA’s request we take judicial notice of certain facts posited in support of the argument.

Narvaez v. Bd. of Police Fire Commr's.

27 Cal. App. 791 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1915

For the reason stated in the decision filed this day in Humburg v. Board of Police and Fire Commissioners of the City of San Jose et al., (Civ. No. 1313), ante, p. 6, [ 148 P. 802 ], the judgment is reversed.

Terzian v. County of Ventura

24 Cal. App. 4th 78 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1994

Larson v. … Meyer v.

San Joaquin County Employees Ass'n v. City of Stockton

161 Cal. App. 3d 807 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1984

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 … (Vernon Fire Fighters v. City of Vernon, supra, 107 Cal.App.3d at p. 823 ; see Grodin, Public Employee Bargaining in California: The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act in the Courts (1972) 23 Hastings L.J. 719 , 753-756.)

Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System v. Superior Court

195 Cal. App. 4th 440 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 2011

(Black Panther Party v. … (Costa v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1187-1188 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 289 ]; see California Assn. for Safety Education v. Brown (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1274-1275 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 404 ].)

Clark v. Rancho Santa Fe Assn.

216 Cal. App. 3d 606 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1989

Co. v. … (Bartlett, Familiar Quotations (Little, Brown and Co., 15th ed. 1980) p. 676.) “Beauty in things exists in the mind which contemplates them.”

People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Becker

262 Cal. App. 2d 634 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1968

Public Works v. Giumarra Vineyards Corp., 245 Cal.App.2d 309 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 902 ]. Of those cases Bacich v. Board of Control, supra, Breidert v. Southern Pac. Co., supra, and Valenta v. … (Bacich v. Board of Control, supra, 23 Cal.2d 343 .) The rule that the creation of such a cul-de-sac is a substantial impairment of the right of access applies with regard to non-urban property. (Valenta v.

People v. Gonzalez

64 Cal. App. 4th 432 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 1998

As previously noted, the Supreme Court in Brown v. … (Compare Brown v.

People v. Garcia

227 Cal. App. 3d 1369 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 1991

We concluded that Brown “was deprived of his right to make an effective motion to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere.” (People v. Brown, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 213 .) … Our holding in Brown was subsequently applied in People v. Osorio (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 183 [ 239 Cal.Rptr. 333 ].

Mission Valley East, Inc. v. County of Kern

120 Cal. App. 3d 89 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1981

Brown (G. A.), P. J., and Hanson (P. !>.), J., concurred. … (Chesney v.

Brunelle v. Signore

215 Cal. App. 3d 122 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 1989

After consideration of the factors discussed in Rowland v. … (Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 113; Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 124-125.)

Evans v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

213 Cal. App. 3d 1378 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1989

(Id., at p. 220; see also Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 485 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 691 P.2d 272 ].) … A discharge grievance, a minor dispute, is subject to the internal grievance process and if not settled, is submitted to the National Railroad Adjustment Board established under the RLA. (Andrews v.

Dept. of Corrections v. State Personnel Board CA3

California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2013

Filed 8/5/13 Dept. of Corrections v. … (See http://spb.ca.gov/board/contract_decisions.cfm. [as of August 5, 2013].) In any event, even Board precedential decisions are not binding on this court. (California Dept. of Corrections v.

International Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of San Jose

195 Cal. App. 4th 1179 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2011

The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) “In 1961, the Legislature enacted the George Brown Act (Stats. 1961, ch. 1964, pp. 4141^-143), which for the first time recognized the rights of state and local employees to organize and … (DeVita v.

Patterson v. Philco Corp.

252 Cal. App. 2d 63 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1967

BROWN (H. C.), J. Appellant Patterson filed a complaint against respondent Philco Corporation, his employer, and D. Joyce, a fellow employee for damages for his wrongful discharge. … [Citation.] . . . the fact that a contract is 'at the will of the parties, respectively does not make it one at the will of others,’ . . .( Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters, 29 Cal.2d 34, 39 [ 172 P.2d 867 ].)