Case law

City of Fontana v. Atkinson

212 Cal. App. 2d 499 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 1963

BROWN (R. … Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 47 Cal.2d 384, 388 [ 303 P.2d 1034 ], and cases cited.

Silva v. Reclamation District No. 1001

41 Cal. App. 326 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1919

(Jones v. Petaluma, 36 Cal. 230 ; Shanklin v. Gray, 111 Cal. 88 , [ 43 Pac. 399 ]; People v. Rodgers, 118 Cal. 393 , [ 46 Pac. 740 , 50 Pac. 668 ]; Code Civ. … v.

Olson v. County of Sacramento

38 Cal. App. 3d 958 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1974

Hess Co. v. … In Collins v.

CNA Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

58 Cal. App. 4th 211 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 1997

Evidence indicated Baker spent between 80 and 99 percent of her working hours on board the vessels to which she was assigned. … Board of Governors (R.I. 1994) 636 A.2d 1313 [Jones Act settlement extinguishes employer’s state workers’ compensation obligations]; Hagens v.

United Firefighters v. City of Los Angeles

153 Cal. App. 3d 383 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1984

(See Taylor v. Crane (1979) 24 Cal.3d 442, 450-452 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 695 , 595 P.2d 129 ].) In Taylor v. … (Taylor v. Crane, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 452 .)

Maurer v. Weatherby

1 Cal. App. 243 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1905

Boards of equalization cannot increase an assessment unless they have evidence before them justifying such increase. (Oakland v. Southern Pac. Co., 131 Cal. 230 , [ 63 Pac. 371 ].) … (Lewis v. Colgan, 115 Cal. 529 , [ 47 Pac. 357 ]; Kansas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Riley County Commrs., 20 Kan. 141 ; City of Grand Rapids v. Welleman, 85 Mich, 234 , [ 48 N. W. 534 ] ; Bardrick v.

Preserve Poway v. City of Poway

245 Cal. App. 4th 560 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 2016

Corp. v. … For example, in City of Pasadena v.

California Association of Professional Scientists v. Schwarzenegger

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 354 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2006

(City of Huntington Beach v. Board of Administration (1992) 4 Cal.4th 462, 466 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 514 , 841 P.2d 1034 ].) … The Dills Act also “vests broad jurisdiction in [the Board] to investigate and act upon unfair labor charges and alleged violations of the act.” (Sullivan v.

Devlin v. Wright

20 Cal. App. 807 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 1912

Devlin v. J. H. Donnelly et al. (No. 1041), ante, p. 495 [ 129 P. 607 ], should be determinative of the decision in this case. On the authority of that case, the writ is denied.

Smith v. City of Los Angeles

190 Cal. App. 2d 112 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1961

In Price v. … In Price v.

Anderson v. City of Los Angeles

30 Cal. App. 3d 219 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1973

(Wendlan v. City of Alameda (1956) 46 Cal.2d 786, 791 [ 298 P.2d 863 ]; Lesem v. Board of Retirement (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 289, 298 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 608 ]; Gray v. Bolger (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 583, 587 [ 321 P.2d 485 ].) … Proc., § 1085; Lindell Co. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1943) 23 Cal.2d 303, 315 [ 144 P.2d 4 ]; Spear v. Board of Medical Examiners (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 207, 212 [ 303 P.2d 886 ]; Allen v.

Riggs v. Guedemann

94 Cal. App. 217 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1928

{Brown v. Plummer, 70 Cal. 337 [ 11 Pac. 631 ]; Nathan v. Porter, 36 Cal. App. 356, 359 [ 172 Pac. 170 ].) The forty days allowed appellant for filing his transcript of record expired on September 9th. … {Fiske v. Gosbey, 168 Cal. 334 [ 143 Pac. 611 ]; Brown v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. 141 [ 165 Pac. 429 ].) The appeals are dismissed. York, J., and Houser, J., concurred.

McCann v. Welden

153 Cal. App. 3d 814 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1984

(Brown v. … (See DiGenova v. State Board of Education (1962) 57 Cal.2d 167, 174 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 367 P.2d 865 ].)

Pacific Mutual Life Insurance. v. County of Orange

187 Cal. App. 3d 1141 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1985

(See Bret Harte Inn, Inc. v. … As the court in De Luz Homes, Inc. v.

People Ex Rel. Mosk v. City of Santa Barbara

192 Cal. App. 2d 342 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1961

Board of Supervisors, 32 Cal.App. 495, 504 [ 163 P. 341 ] [storm water districts] ; Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 119 Cal.App.2d 29, 38 [ 258 P.2d 570 ] [Water Code, section 20700, irrigation districts]. … See also Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles v. Franchise Tax Board, 55 Cal.2d 407, 422 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 289 , 359 P.2d 625 ].)

Hunter v. County of Santa Barbara

110 Cal. App. 698 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1930

The principle involved is also supported in the following cases: Jenkins v. Williams, 14 Cal. App. 89 [ 111 Pac. 116 ] ; McMahon v. Board of Supervisors, 46 Cal. 204 ; Peery v. City of Los Angeles, 187 Cal. 753 [19 A. … Appellants’ counsel also assert that the eases of McBean v. Redick, Treanor v. Houghton and Kutchin v.

Burki v. Pleasanton School District

18 Cal. App. 493 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1912

, require such architect to execute and file with the . . . board of trustees ... a good and sufficient bond ... in the penal sum of five thousand dollars, to be approved by the . . . board of trustees . . . and conditioned … (Tilley v. County of Cook, 103 U. S. 155 , [ 26 L. Ed. 374 ]; Mann et al. v. Town of Rochester, 29 Ind. App. 12 , [ 63 N. E. 874 ]; Walsh v. St. Louis Exposition, 101 Mo. 534 , [ 14 S. W. 722 ]; Smithmeyer *498 v.

Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Ass'n

37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 133 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2005

(Edwards v. … Weinberg v.

McKinney v. Red Top Cab Co.

113 Cal. App. 637 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1931

(Roche v. Llewellyn Iron Works Co., 140 Cal. 563 [ 74 Pac. 147 ]; Pierce v. United Gas & Elec. Co., 161 Cal. 176 [ 118 Pac. 700 ]; Citti v. Bava, 204 Cal. 136 [ 266 Pac. 954 ].) … (Girard v. Irvine, 97 Cal. App. 877 [ 275 Pac. 840 ].)

City of Petaluma v. County of Sonoma CA1/4

California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2014

(Environmental Council v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 428, 439–440.) 1. … Brown Act On October 12, 2010, the Board held a public meeting on Revised Project II, and heard comments from the public.