Case law

Hilton v. Board of Supervisors

7 Cal. App. 3d 708 · California Court of Appeal · May 19, 1970

(See Johnston v. City of Claremont, 49 Cal.2d 826, 834 [ 323 P.2d 71 ]; Tandy v. City of Oakland, 208 Cal.App.2d 609, 611 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 429 ]; Ferris v. … (De Luca v. Board of Supervisors, 134 Cal.App.2d 606, 609-610 [ 286 P.2d 395 ].)

Sweeney v. State Personnel Board

245 Cal. App. 2d 246 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1966

Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, 52 Cal.2d 238, 246 [ 340 P.2d 1 ] ; Hingsbergen v. State Personnel Board, 240 Cal.App.2d 914, 916-917 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 59 ] ; Neely v. … State Personnel Board, 237 Cal.App.2d 487, 489 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 64 ] ; Lorimore v. State Personnel Board, 232 Cal.App.2d 183, 186 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 640 ] ; Tabory v.

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.

Lorimore v. State Personnel Board

232 Cal. App. 2d 183 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1965

State Personnel Board, 37 Cal.2d 634 [ 234 P.2d 981 ] ; 1 Shepherd v. State Personnel Board, 48 Cal.2d 41 [ 307 P.2d 4 ]; Genser v. State Personnel Board, 112 Cal.App.2d 77 [ 245 P.2d 1090 ]; Batson v. … (Shepherd v. State Personnel Board, supra; Genser v. State Personnel Board, supra.)

Brown v. Pacifica Foundation, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2019

BROWN, Plaintiff and Respondent, A152824 v. … (See also People v.

Byers v. Board of Supervisors

262 Cal. App. 2d 148 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 1968

Moore & Domingos v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County, 45 Cal. 692 ; County of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 212 Cal.App.2d 160, 164-165 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 32 ]; San Vicente Nursery School v. … (Leavitt v. Lassen Irr. Co., 157 Cal. 82, 92 [ 106 P. 404 , 29 L.R.A. N.S. 213]; Earle v. Board of Education of San Francisco, 55 Cal. 489, 491 .)

Harmon v. Board of Retirement

62 Cal. App. 3d 689 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 1976

See also Cansdale v. Board of Administration (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 656, 664 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 880 ].) In Barber v. Retirement Board (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 273 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 657 ], the shoe was on the other foot. … (Barber v. Retirement Board, supra.)

Washington v. State Personnel Board

127 Cal. App. 3d 636 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1981

In this examination we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the board’s findings and indulge all reasonable inferences in support thereof. (Neely v. … (Skelly v. State Personnel Bd (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 218 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 539 P.2d 774 ].) After a full evidentiary hearing, the dismissal was upheld by the board.

People Ex Rel. Brown v. Powerex Corp.

62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 638 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2007

Cal. v. … [v.

Long v. State Personnel Board

41 Cal. App. 3d 1000 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 1974

('Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby, supra, pp. 16-17.) On the other hand, we are reviewing here-a classification created by the State Personnel Board, a constitutional agency of the State of California. In Pereyda v. … All reasonable inferences must be drawn in support of the findings of the Board (Hingsbergen v. State Personnel Bd. (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 914 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 59 ]; Neely v.

Comstock v. Board of Trustees

35 Cal. App. 2d 466 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1939

(Comstock v. Board of Trustees, 20 Cal. … App. (2d) 115 [ 36 Pac. (2d) 153 ] ; Caminetti v. Board of Trustees, 1 Cal. (2d) 354 [ 34 Pac. (2d) 1021 ] ; Abraham, v. Sims, 2 Cal. (2d) 698 [ 42 Pac. (2d) 1029 ].)

Fenton v. Board of Directors

156 Cal. App. 3d 1107 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1984

(Barton v. Owen (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 484 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 494 ].) … (Smith v. Smith (1955) 45 Cal.2d 235, 239 [ 288 P.2d 497 ]; Lowe v. Ruhlman (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 828 [ 155 P.2d 671 ].)

Austin v. Board of Retirement

209 Cal. App. 3d 1528 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1989

Finally, the Board contends Tripp does not apply, as the Board was prevented by law from awarding benefits until the administrative appeal process was completed. Interestingly, in Mass v. … (Tripp v.

Howe v. Board of Supervisors

118 Cal. App. 306 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1931

The decision in Gibson v. Board of Supervisors, 80 Cal. 359 [ 22 Pac. 225 ], is relied upon as establishing the above stated principle. … In Roche v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.

Szmaciarz v. State Personnel Board

79 Cal. App. 3d 904 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1978

State Personnel Board, supra, at pp. 513-514.) In Vielehr v. … (Brown v. Gordon (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 659, 667 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 901 ]; see also Cadilla v. Board of Medical Examiners (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 961, 967 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 455 ].)

Crawford v. Board of Education

200 Cal. App. 3d 1397 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 1988

(See Bustop, Inc. v. Los Angeles Board of Education (1978) 439 U.S. 1380 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 88 , 99 S.Ct. 40 ].) Plan II commenced operation as scheduled in September 1978. … Hewitt v. Helms (1987) 482 U.S. 755 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 654 , 107 S.Ct. 2672 ]; American Constitutional Party v.

Shelley v. Board of Trade

87 Cal. App. 344 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1927

Brainard v. … In Be Graff v. Board of County Commrs., 46 Minn. 319 [ 48 N.

Thornton v. Board of Trustees

262 Cal. App. 2d 761 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 1968

Proc., § 1085; Titus v. Lawndale School Dist., 157 Cal.App.2d 822, 830 [ 322 P.2d 56 ].) Respondent contends this right is limited to permanent teachers, that is, those enjoying tenure contract rights. … (See Horner v. Board of Trustees, 61 Cal.2d 79 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 389 P.2d 713 ].)

Hayes v. Board of Trustees

6 Cal. App. 520 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 1907

(Mooney v. Supervisors, 2 Cal. App. 69 , [83 Pac. 165]; People v. Loyalton, 147 Cal. 774 , [ 82 Pac. 620 ] ; People v. Los Angeles, 133 Cal. 338 , [ 65 Pac. 749 ].) … (Town of Santa Monica v. Eckert (Cal.), [ 33 Pac. 880 ].) It is also urged by respondents that the petitioner is not a person or party beneficially interested in the matter.

Summerford v. Board of Retirement

72 Cal. App. 3d 128 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1977

(French v. Rishell (1953) 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 [ 254 P.2d 26 ]; Bernhard v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 813 [ 122 P.2d 892 ]; Barber v. Retirement Board (1971) 18 *131 Cal.App.3d 273, 278 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 657 ].) … Board of Retirement (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 124, 129 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 891 ]; Grant v. Board of Retirement (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 1020, 1021 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 791 ]; Flaherty v.