Case law

Jaffee v. Psychology Examining Committee

92 Cal. App. 3d 160 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1979

(Creelman v. State Board of Registration for Arch. (1968) 73 Wn.2d 298 , 438 P.2d 215 , 217.) … The court is not a super examining board (Nemer v.

McGriff v. County of Los Angeles

33 Cal. App. 3d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1973

(County of Placer v. Aetna Cas. etc. Co., 50 Cal.2d 182, 189 [ 323 P.2d 753 ]; see also Simpson v. Cranston, 56 Cal.2d 63, 69 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 668 , 362 P.2d 492 ]; People v. … (Pearson v. County of Los Angeles, 49 Cal.2d 523 [ 319 P.2d 624 ]; Scheafer v. Herman, 172 Cal. 338 [ 155 P. 1084 ]; Curphey v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.2d 261 [ 337 P.2d 169 ]; Gibson v.

Hollywood Circle, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

153 Cal. App. 2d 523 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 3, 1957

(Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works, 44 Cal.2d 90, 106 [ 280 P.2d 1 ], and cases cited.) In the leading case of Abelleira v. … (Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works, supra, 44 Cal.2d 90, 107 .) 5. The order of the Appeals Board was neither invalid nor ineffective under section 23086 of the Business and Professions Code.

County of Riverside v. Superior Court

42 Cal. App. 3d 478 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 1974

(Collins v. City & Co. of S. F., 112 Cal.App.2d 719, 731 [ 247 P.2d 362 ]; Shelby v. Southern Pacific Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 594, 599 [ 157 P.2d 442 ].) … (a), (b) and (f); Thorn v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 666, 668 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 600 , 464 P.2d 56 ].)

Spaulding v. Philbrick

42 Cal. App. 2d 58 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1940

Such Boards are vested with a high discretion and its abuse must appear very clearly before the courts will interfere.” (Maxwell v. Civil Service Commission, 169 Cal. 336 -339 [ 146 Pac. 869 ].) … The foregoing quotation is cited with approval in Pratt v. Rosenthal, 181 Cal. 158 -164 [ 183 Pac. 542 ].

Taylor v. Burks

6 Cal. App. 225 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1907

In Barber v. … Proc., sec. 1109; People v. Board, 27 Cal. 655 ; Jones v. Board, 141 Cal. 96 , [ 74 Pac. 696 ].)

People v. Branch

119 Cal. App. 2d 490 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 4, 1953

Appellant had a brown bag in one hand and was pulling out some of the contents with the other. … This factor was sufficient to require a reversal in People v. Kehoe, 33 Cal.2d 711 [ 204 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Knowles, 35 Cal.2d 175 [ 217 P.2d 1 ]; People v.

Vinson v. Ham Bros. Construction, Inc.

7 Cal. App. 3d 990 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1970

(Gray v. Brinkerhoff, 41 *994 Cal.2d 180, 183 [ 258 P.2d 834 ].) (See also Hudson v. Rainville, supra, 46 Cal.2d 474, 477 .) … (Grafton v. Mollica, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d 860, 862 ; Estate of Lances, supra, 216 Cal. 397, 400 .) The judgment, based upon the directed verdict, is reversed. Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Coughlin, J., concurred.

Servente v. Murray

10 Cal. App. 2d 355 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1935

(Mogan v. Board of Police Commrs., 100 Cal. App. 270, 276 [ 279 Pac. 1080 ].) … Sixth District Agricultural Assn., 201 Cal. 502 -511 [ 258 Pac. 387 ] ; Caminetti v. Board of Trustees, 1 Cal. (2d) 354-356 [ 34 Pac. (2d) 1021 ].)

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 ].)

Garcia v. County of Sacramento

103 Cal. App. 4th 67 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2002

However, Brown v. … (Brown v. Stewart, supra, at p. 334 .)

Thiel Detective Co. v. County of Tuolumne

37 Cal. App. 423 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1918

It is true, as said in Fulkerth v. … In the case of McBride v.

People v. Cain

California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 2025

(People v. Brown (2023) 14 Cal.5th 530, 536 (Brown).) “Issues of statutory construction are reviewed de novo.” (Brown, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 536.) … (San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571, 580.) In his report on Proposition 66, the legislative analyst stated that there are “Two Ways to Challenge Death Sentences.”

People v. Thompson

193 Cal. App. 2d 620 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1961

Brown arrived (he thought it about 5 :30) as defendant was coming out of the door; he told Brown his girl friend was sick and he wanted a doctor. Brown went home to get the telephone number of a doctor he knew. … (People v. Shimonaka, supra, 16 Cal.App. 117, 120-121 ; People v. Muhlner, 115 Cal. 303, 306 [ 47 P. 128 ] ; People v. Garcia, 174 Cal.App.2d 525, 534 [ 344 P.2d 855 ]; People v.

Borden v. Division of Medical Quality

30 Cal. App. 4th 874 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 2, 1994

The extent of a penalty within the Board’s discretion is for the Board to determine. (Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 149 Cal.App.2d at p. 332 .) … (Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 149 Cal.App.2d at pp. 330-331.)

Manhan v. Gallagher

California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 2021

The court discussed Spinks v. … (See Phillips v. Sprint PCS (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 758, 768; Blue Mountain Development Co. v.

Stromberg, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

270 Cal. App. 2d 759 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1969

In Hall v. … (Dias v. Eden Township Hospital Dist., 57 Cal.2d 502, 503 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 370 P.2d 334 ]; Jackson v. Board of Education, 250 Cal.App.2d 856, 859 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 763 ]; Adler v.

National Union Fire Insurance v. Stites Professional Law Corp.

235 Cal. App. 3d 1718 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 1991

In Cobler v. … (DeLaney v.

Gallegos v. State Bd. of Forestry

76 Cal. App. 3d 945 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1978

(Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 65 Cal.App.3d 723, 731; Hadley v. City of Ontario (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 121, 128 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 513 ].) … (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San . Francisco (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 584, 596 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 100 ]; see Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 65 Cal.App.3d at p. 731 .)

In Re Elkins

50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 503 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2006

in Greenholtz v. … The Governor’s review of a Board suitability decision is constitutionally authorized “subject to procedures provided by statute” (Cal. Const., art. V, § 8, subd.