Case law

City of Coronado v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm'n

69 Cal. App. 3d 570 · California Court of Appeal · May 9, 1977

In Koehn v. State Board of Equalization, 166 Cal.App.2d 109, 118-119 [ 333 P.2d 125 ], Business and Professions Code section 23086 was under scrutiny. … (see Bozung v.

California Canning Peach Growers v. Harris

91 Cal. App. 654 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1928

And you didn’t tell the board of directors that, did you? A. I don’t believe we had a board of directors meeting until after the peaches were being delivered.” … (Gerrish v. Maher, 70 Ill. 470 ; Hutchings v. Munger, 41 N. Y. 155 ; Thomas v. Anthony, 30 Cal. App. 217 [ 157 Pac. 823 ], See, also, 2 Cor. Jur., pp. 645, 646.)”

Stone v. Stone

58 Cal. App. 415 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1922

In Brown v. Brown, 170 Cal. 1 [ 147 Pac. 1168 ], and Brown v. … In Cohen v. Cohen, 150 Cal. 99, 102 [11 Ann.

Watson v. Fouch

55 Cal. App. 765 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 24, 1921

The board of trustees of said town constitutes the legislative or governing board or body thereof, and the defendants are the regularly elected and duly qualified trustees of said town and members of said board. … (Pe ople v. Gunn, 85 Cal. 238, 246 [ 24 Pac. 718 ].)

Burns v. American Casualty Co.

127 Cal. App. 2d 198 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 1954

Brown, Attorney General, and Harold B. Haas, Deputy Attorney General, Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondents. BRAY, J. … To the same effect, In re City & County of San Francisco, 191 Cal. 172, 184 [ 215 P. 549 ]; Wehrle v. Board of Water & Power Commrs., 211 Cal. 70, 73 [ 293 P. 67 ]; Butler v.

City of San Buenaventura v. McGuire

8 Cal. App. 497 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1908

It may be conceded that the city of San Buenaventura and the individuals composing the board were not all necessary parties, but it does not follow that they are improper parties. ( Barber v. … of Commissioners v.

Cruz v. City of Culver City

2 Cal. App. 5th 239 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2016

(Tourgeman v. … BC565079) v.

Vernon Fire Fighters Assn. v. City of Vernon

178 Cal. App. 3d 710 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1986

(Harlow v. Carleson (1976) 16 Cal.3d 731, 739 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 298 , 548 P.2d 698 ]; Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners (1948) 32 Cal.2d 301, 308 [ 196 P.2d 20 ].) … (Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 357 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 337 , 461 P.2d 617 ].)

Gonzales v. California Victim Compensation Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2023

(Bunnett v. … Superior Court (Brown) (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 948, 952). Second, “factual findings” are typically findings that can be reviewed for substantial evidence (e.g., City of San Marcos v.

Mart v. Riley

239 Cal. App. 2d 649 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1966

(Billig v. Southern Pac. Co., 189 Cal. 477, 485-486 [ 209 P. 241 ].) A case similar to this one factually is McComes v. Al. G. … As said in Doty v. Lacey, 114 Cal.App.2d 73, 79-80 [ 249 P.2d 550 ] : “. . .

Del Real v. City of Riverside

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 705 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 2002

(City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 361 ].) A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue. … (See, e.g., Life v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 894 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 196 ] and Jackson v. Board of Education (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 856 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 763 ].)

Lavers v. Jones

96 Cal. App. 248 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 1929

comaker of the note, finds support in the cases of Yule v. … Jur. 261; Goldman v. Murray, 164 Cal. 419 [ 129 Pac. 462 ].)

Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court

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

Brown et al. … Assn. v.

Nick v. City of Lake Forest

232 Cal. App. 4th 871 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2014

(Fukuda v. … (See Smith v.

California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 2022

Monterey has a dual governing board structure consisting of the elected Monterey County Board of Supervisors and a Board of Directors appointed by the Board of Supervisors. … (Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1607; see generally Weil & Brown, Cal.

Coats v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

1 Cal. App. 441 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 1905

Co. v. … (Schaufele v. Doyle, 86 Cal. 109 , [ 24 Pac. 834 ]; Eachus v. Los Angeles Electric Ry. Co., 103 Cal. 617 , [ 42 Am. St. Rep. 149 , 37 Pac. 750 ] ; Brown v. Board of Supervisors, 124 Cal. 280 , [ 57 Pac. 82 ].)

William Simpson Construction Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

74 Cal. App. 239 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 1925

(Perkins v. Trueblood, 180 Cal. 437, 443 [ 181 Pac. 642 ] ; Houghton v. Dickson, 29 Cal. App. 321, 324 [ 155 Pac. 128 ]; Dameron v. Ansbro, 39 Cal. App. 289, 300 [ 178 Pac. 874 ]; Pearson v. Crabtree, 70 Cal. … (Eastmm Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, supra.)

In Re ZR

168 Cal. App. 4th 1510 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2008

Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Darren K. … "[T]he objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent." ( Hughes v. Board of Architectural Examiners (1998) 17 Cal.4th 763, 775 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 , 952 P.2d 641 ].)

KSDO v. Superior Court

136 Cal. App. 3d 375 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 1982

(Baker v. … Brown, at his deposition, revealed his sources to the plaintiffs. Thus, this case is taken out of the ambit of Garland v.

Pathe v. City of Bakersfield

255 Cal. App. 2d 409 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 1967

(See also Lowman v. Stafford, 226 Cal.App.2d 31, 36-39 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 681 ] ; Loustalot v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.2d 905 [ 186 P.2d 673 ] ; Buttner v. American Bell Tel. … (Glass v. Ashbury, 49 Cal. 571 ; Cowell v. Martin, 43 Cal. 605 ; Whitmore v. Brown, 207 Cal. 473, 481 [ 279 P. 447 ] ; Zottman v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 96 [81 Am.Dec. 96].)