Case law

California State University, Fresno Ass'n v. County of Fresno

9 Cal. App. 5th 250 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 2017

Partnership v. … (Bonnell v. Medical Board (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1255, 1264; accord, People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296, 300, fn. 3; Red Mountain, LLC v.

Frates v. Burnett

9 Cal. App. 3d 63 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 24, 1970

(American Federation of Teachers v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 91, 97 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 85 ]; Heckley v. Board of Education (1959) 53 Cal.2d 218, 220-221 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 347 P.2d 4 ].) … (See American Federation of Teachers v.

American Distilling Co. v. Johnson

132 Cal. App. 2d 73 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1955

The courts take judicial notice *77 of the rules of the board. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1875, subd. 3; Anders v. State Board of Equalization, 82 Cal.App.2d 88, 98 [ 185 P.2d 883 ].) … It has been held in San Francisco Brewing Corp. v.

People v. Fandinola

221 Cal. App. 4th 1415 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2013

(See People v. … In Brown v.

Santa Monica Unified School District v. Persh

5 Cal. App. 3d 945 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1970

(See Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. … (Miller v. McKinnon, 20 Cal.2d 83, 90 [ 124 P.2d 34 , 140 A.L.R. 570 ].) In Reams v.

Hellman v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

135 Cal. App. 627 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1933

“One who boards a street car at a regular stopping place becomes a passenger whether or not the carrier actually knows of his presence in the "car. In such a ease knowledge is implied.” (Ivancich v. … See, also, Cody v. Market St. Ry. Co., 148 Cal. 90 [ 82 Pac. 666 ] ; McCurrie v. Southern Pac. Co., 122 Cal. 561 [ 55 Pac. 324 ].

In Re Smith

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 781 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2003

Our review of the evidence before the Board persuades us there is no evidence to support the Governor’s decision reversing the Board’s suitability finding. (Superintendent v. … V, § 8, subd. (b) [the Governor may only affirm, modify or reverse the Board’s decision “on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider”].)

People v. Price

California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2021

See also People v. … (E.g., People v.

People v. Thompson

36 Cal. App. 4th 843 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 1995

Fred Lopez, who worked at the Contractor’s State License Board, also testified the Riddle contract was a fixed price contract. … (People v.

People v. Keith

52 Cal. App. 3d 947 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 1975

Frederick Brown, a liquor store owner who knew defendant as a customer, observed defendant and another man in the Tai Ping Restaurant at about 11 p.m. They walked past the table at which Brown and his wife were seated. … Relying on People v.

People v. Haines

123 Cal. App. 3d 861 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1981

I With respect to appellant’s first contention, we do find justification for the officer’s entry into the carport and seizure of the brown paper bag. In People v. … In People v.

Goytino v. McAleer

4 Cal. App. 655 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1906

(People v. Grant, 126 N. Y. 476 , [ 27 N. E. 967 ].) The ordinance under consideration does not undertake to declare the keeping of a pool-table a nuisance. … A judgment in the proceedings in the superior court, when final, could be pleaded in bar of this action as a prior adjudication (McCormick v.

American Chemical Corp. v. County of Los Angeles

42 Cal. App. 3d 45 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1974

(Bank of America v. Mundo, supra, 37 Cal.2d 1, 5 [ 229 P.2d 345 ]; De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 45 Cal.2d 546, 564 [ 290 P.2d 544 ]; Strumsky v. … In State of California v.

People v. Banks

170 Cal. App. 2d 72 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1959

(People v. Kelsey, 140 Cal.App.2d 722 [ 295 P.2d 462 ].) The remaining contention to be noticed is that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. … (People v. Alonzo, 158 Cal.App.2d 45, 47-48 [ 322 P.2d 42 ].)

STATE TRIAL ATTORNEYS'ASSN v. State of California

63 Cal. App. 3d 298 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1976

(a); State v. Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen (1951) 37 Cal.2d 412, 421-422 [ 232 P.2d 857 ].) The State Personnel Board fixes the salaries of civil *302 service employees. … (See Board of Fish and Game Commissioners v. Riley (1924) 194 Cal. 37, 45-48 [ 227 P. 775 ]; see also, for example, Cal. Stats. 1974, chs. 266,345.)

Evans v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.

67 Cal. App. 3d 162 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1977

The defenses noted above raised by each of the real parties, other than Brown, are inappropriate in an unlawful detainer action, as is Shirley’s cross-complaint. (MCA, Inc. v. … (Byrne v. Baker, 221 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 178 ]; Kartheiser v. Superior Court, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 617 .) The contentions raised by real party Brown, however, differ from those raised by the other real parties.

Burrell v. City of Los Angeles

209 Cal. App. 3d 568 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1989

(Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, supra, 470 U.S. 532, 542-543 [84 L.Ed.2d at p. 504]; Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 335 [ 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33-34 , 96 S.Ct. 893 ]; Board of Regents v. … (Griggs v. Board of Trustees (1964) 61 Cal.2d 93, 98 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 194 , 389 P.2d 722 ].)

People v. Whelchel

255 Cal. App. 2d 455 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1967

Co. v. Contractors’ etc. Board, 72 Cal.App.2d 287, 301 [ 164 P.2d 811 ]; Brophy v. Industrial Acc. Com., 46 Cal.App.2d 278, 283 [ 115 P.2d 835 ].) … Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Whelan, J., concurred.

Hampson v. Superior Court of Inyo Cty.

67 Cal. App. 3d 472 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 1977

In Abelleira v. … stipulated control actions set forth in Chapter V are to be implemented, but that identified actions set forth in Chapter V other than control actions are recommendations to be taken under consideration by the State Board

In Re Daniels

106 Cal. App. 43 · California Court of Appeal · May 23, 1930

V. … App. 700 [ 266 Pac. 585 ], had occasion to review and cite the authorities bearing upon the power of the board of prison directors relative to prisoners on parole. In Pareses v.