Case law

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. App. Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2023

For example, in Bonnell v. … (Mathews v. Workers’ Comp.

Daily Journal Corp. v. County of Los Angeles

172 Cal. App. 4th 1550 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2009

(California Assn. for Safety Education v. Brown (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1281 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 404 ].) … Younger v.

Sporich v. Superior Court

77 Cal. App. 4th 422 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2000

{Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 388 ; Kees v. Medical Board (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1801, 1815 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 112 ]; 1 Hogan, Modern Cal. Discovery (4th ed. 1988) p. 471.) … {Kees v. Medical Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 1815.) There was no showing whatsoever that petitioner’s mental status had changed at all.

Galloway v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. Washington Ornamental Ironworks Inc.

74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 374 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 1998

Insurer filed a petition for reconsideration with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). … The burden of proving the employee’s knowledge is on the employer (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 39 Cal.3d 57, 65; Chambers v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

Alliance San Diego v. California Taxpayers Action Network

California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 2025

(Meyers v. Board of Administration etc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 250, 256; Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 865–866.) … In support of its argument, CTAN cites Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board (2018) 5 Cal.5th 898 (Boling).

Southwick v. Contractors State License Board CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 2024

(Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 830, 839; see Code Civ. … A161391, Southwick v. Contractors State License Board, et al. 8

Slayton v. Wright

271 Cal. App. 2d 219 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 1969

(Brown v. Southern Ry. Co., 204 N.C. 668 [ 169 S.E. 419, 420 ].) … Where no rating has been made by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board [formerly Industrial Accident Commission] of an employee’s permanent injuries, it is impossible for any court to determine the rating; the board has

Griffith Co. v. Belchez

76 Cal. App. 2d 155 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1946

(Ritters bacher v. Board of Supervisors, 220 Cal. 535, 542 [ 32 P.2d 135 ] ; Strong v. Mack, 64 Cal.App.2d 739, 742 [ 149 P.2d 401 ].) … (See, also, Chambers v. Duvall, 26 Cal.2d 139 [ 156 P.2d 921 ] ; City of Compton v. Boland, supra ; Barrett v. Brown, 26 Cal.2d 328 [ 158 P.2d 567 ] ; Mais v.

Fulton v. MEDICAL BD. OF CALIFORNIA

183 Cal. App. 4th 1510 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 2010

(Day v. City of Fontana (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268, 272 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 , 19 P.3d 1196 ].) … We accord respect and consideration to the Board’s interpretation, but we apply our independent judgment in construing the statutes. (See Yamaha Corp. of America v.

Santander v. City of Los Angeles CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 2016

inappropriately used where suspect was not violent and did not try to flee, but kept his hands in front of him to resist being handcuffed]; Brown v. … Sergeant Brown and the members of the Board agreed. Our review of the video does not lead us to believe that their observations were inherently improbable.

People v. Makabali

14 Cal. App. 4th 847 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1993

(Id., at p. 216; see also People v. Garcia (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1369, 1374-1375 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 421 ].) The Fifth District followed Brown in People v. Osorio, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d 183 . … Finally, the Sixth District recently created a “limited exception” to the Brown rule which is relevant to this case. In People v.

Pacific Southwest Airlines v. State Bard of Equalization

73 Cal. App. 3d 32 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1977

Because none of these required notice-providing procedures was followed, the board’s six-month test is invalid as an administrative regulation (California Medical Assn. v. … However, even assigning “great weight” to the board’s interpretations (see Culligan, supra, pp. 92-93 ) and noting that tax exemptions are to be strictly construed against the taxpayer (Santa Fe Transp. v.

Mendibles v. City of San Diego

100 Cal. App. 2d 502 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1950

City of Glendale, 12 Cal.App.2d 389 [ 55 P.2d 580 ], and Edward Brown & Sons v. … (Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 19 Cal.2d 198, 203 [ 120 P.2d 13 ].) However, the doctrine of equitable estoppel was applied in the Farrell case, supra, and in the following cases: Tyra v. Board, of Police etc.

People v. Westmire

71 Cal. App. 2d 432 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1945

It did not determine whether Clayton was an habitual criminal, but referred that matter to the prison board. … The testimony of McGarry as to that conversation was substantially the same as the testimony of Officer Brown, hereinafter referred to, concerning that conversation.

Davis v. Davis

120 Cal. App. 4th 1007 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2004

On January 1, 2002, the City of Los Angeles Department of Fire and Police Pensions Board (the Pension Board) offered eligible members the option of transferring from their current tier to tier 5, under which contributions … Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 821-822 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 820 , 799 P.2d 1253 ].)” (Tanner v. Tanner (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 419, 424-425 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 204 ].)

Koch v. Wilcoxon

30 Cal. App. 517 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1916

(Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 365 , [ 51 Pac. 549, 955 ] ; Brown v. Hurst, 1 Cal. App. 752 , [ 82 Pac. 1056 ].) An amendment to conform to the proof may always be made, provided the cause of action is not thereby changed. … (Hancock v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 554 , [ 74 Pac. 44 ].) The amendment in this case did not change the cause of action.

Skidgel v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2018

(Bedoe v. … Sess.) prepared for Governor Brown (July 10, 1978) p. 1.)

People v. Taylor

46 Cal. App. 3d 513 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1975

He also saw on the floor a knife, screwdriver, flashlight and a pair of brown gloves. … (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].)

Szold v. MEDICAL BD. OF CALIFORNIA

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 665 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2005

CONCLUSION The Board is statutorily required, pursuant to sections 803.1 and 2027, to post on its Web site information pertaining to a licensee having completed probation imposed by the Board. 5 *600 V. … Corp. of America v.

Coe v. Davidson

43 Cal. App. 3d 170 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1974

(See, e.g., Whitehill v. Elkins, Baggett v. Bullitt, Speiser v. Randall , as well as Keyishian v. Board of Regents and Elfbrandt v. Russell , all supra. … Among these are: bill of attainder theory—United States v. Brown (1965) 381 U.S. 437 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 484 , 85 S.Ct. 1707 ], Communications Assn. v.