Case law

Godward v. Board of Trustees

94 Cal. App. 160 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1928

In Kennedy v. Board of Education, 82 Cal. 483, 489 [ 22 Pac. 1042 ], it is said: “This section contains no limitation as to the time for which a board of education in a city may employ a teacher. … (Riley v. Forbes, 193 Cal. 740, 745 [ 227 Pac. 768 ] ; Riley v.

Ross v. Board of Education

18 Cal. App. 222 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1912

(Fremont v. Crippen, 10 Cal. 211 , [ 70 Am. Dec. 711 ]; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488 ; Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ]; Robertson v. Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 , [ 69 Pac. 88 ].) … (Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ] ; Apgar v. Trustees , 34 N. J. L. 308; Merrill on Mandamus, secs. 109, 115, pp. 130, 140.) The rule declared in Raisch v.

Medical Board v. Superior Court

106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 381 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2001

See, San Francisco Taxpayers Ass[n]. v. Board of Supervisors[, supra,] 2 Cal.4th 571, 577 . … Medical Board (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 462, 465, fn. 2 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 917 ].) 8 Usher v. County of Monterey (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 210, 215 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 274 ]. 9 Usher v.

Crawford v. Board of Education

20 Cal. App. 2d 391 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1937

Under such circumstances the court must uphold plaintiff’s contention that the board is estopped to deny that he has *396 been permanently classified. The question involved was decided in Briney v. … In Barnhardt v. Gray, 15 Cal.

Burgess v. Board of Education

41 Cal. App. 3d 571 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 4, 1974

In People v. … Strumsky v.

Sulier v. State Personnel Board

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 615 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2004

(See, e.g., Stanton v. … Brown, J., did not participate therein. 1 Hereafter POBRA. (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq.)

Osborn v. Board of Supervisors

27 Cal. App. 85 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1915

For a discussion of the general principles involved herein it is sufficient to refer to Chase v. Kalber, 21 Cal. App. Dec. 481, and Minges v. … The point is really covered by the case of Conn v. City Council, 17 Cal. App. 713 , [ 121 Pac. 718 ], and Locher v. Walsh, 17 Cal. App. 727 , [ 121 Pac. 712 ].

Board of Trustees v. Stubblefield

16 Cal. App. 3d 820 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1971

(Johnson v. Taft School Dist., 19 Cal.App.2d 405, 408 [ 65 P.2d 912 ].) And as our Supreme Court said in Board of Education v. … Swan, 41 Cal.2d 546 [ 261 P.2d 261 ]; Board of Education v. Weiland, 179 Cal.App.2d 808 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 286 ].

Reithardt v. Board of Education

43 Cal. App. 2d 629 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1941

The liability of defendants, if any, is based on section 2.801 of the School Code of the State of California, which provides as follows: “Boards of school trustees, high school boards, junior college boards and boards of … In Williams v. Board of Trustees, 210 App. Div. 161 [ 205 N. Y. Supp. 742 ], a child on a crowded seat of a vehicle was pushed over a small rail and against a wheel.

Ladd v. Board of Trustees

23 Cal. App. 3d 984 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 1972

In Thornton v. … In Taylor v.

Neeley v. Board of Retirement

36 Cal. App. 3d 815 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1974

Opinion BROWN (G. A.), J. County of Fresno employees are covered by the provisions of the 1937 County Employees Retirement Law (Gov. … (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [ 335 P.2d 672 ].)

Taylor v. State Personnel Board

101 Cal. App. 3d 498 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1980

Appellants reason that because they were in fact provided a hearing, a hearing must have been required by the State Personnel Board, and administrative mandamus should lie. However, in Keeler v. … (Beazell v.

Bland v. Board of Trustees

67 Cal. App. 784 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1924

dismissal of a principal, that when once elected a principal, the person so elected a principal of any school continues to be such until removed for cause, and for authority to support this contention cites the case of Kennedy v. … Board of Education, 82 Cal. 483 [ 22 Pac. 1042 ].

Board of Education v. Jewett

21 Cal. App. 2d 64 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 1937

Violation of the oath justifies a revocation of his credentials by the State Board of Education, and would, to say the least, constitute unprofessional conduct. In Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 66 Cal. … In Allied Architects’ Ass'n v.

Wilson v. Board of Retirement

156 Cal. App. 2d 195 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1957

Harney, Inc. v. Contractors’ etc. Board, 39 Cal.2d 561, 565 [ 247 P.2d 913 ]; Sullivan v. San Francisco Art Assn., 101 Cal.App.2d 449, 455 [ 225 P.2d 993 ].) … For example see: Packer v. Board of Retirement, 35 Cal.2d 212 [ 217 P.2d 660 ] ; Thurston v. County of Los Angeles, 117 Cal.App.2d 618 [ 256 P.2d 588 ]; and Wicktor v.

Dunbar v. Governing Board

275 Cal. App. 2d 14 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1969

BROWN (Gerald), P. J. … (Los Angeles Teachers Union, Local 1021, A.F.T. v. Los Angeles City Board of Education, 71 Cal.2d 551 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 723 , 455 P.2d 827 ].)

Minges v. Board of Trustees

27 Cal. App. 15 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1915

The constitution thus determines the qualifications of an elector and it was held, in Bergevin v. … There is nothing in Davenport v. City of Los Angeles, 146 Cal. 508, [ 80 Pac. 684 ], casting any doubt upon our conclusion.

Rockwood v. Brown International Investment Co.

51 Cal. App. 2d 241 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 1942

Said defendant relied upon Shiver v. Liberty Building-Loan Assn., 16 Cal. (2d) 296 [ 106 P. (2d) 4 ], The court there said at page 300, “As stated in the McAllister case (McAllister v. … (McAllister v. Drapeau, supra, page 109.)

Takahashi v. Board of Education

202 Cal. App. 3d 1464 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1988

That opinion was certified for publication and appears as California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Board, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d 27 . … (Bekiaris v. Board of Education, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 592 .)

Emerson v. Board of Trustees

23 Cal. App. 2d 432 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 1937

(Hodge v. Board of Education, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 341 [ 70 Pac. (2d) 1009 ].) No question of discrimination arises here, since the petitioner was the only teacher in this district. In Abraham v. … That phase of the subject has been *435 so ably discussed in Fidler v. Board of Trustees, supra ( 112 Cal. App. 296, pp. 301, 305 [ 296 Pac. 912 ]), that it is needless to enlarge upon it here.