Case law

Siegel v. Fife CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 2015

Filed 4/13/15 Siegel v. … State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541; Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 77-78.) The appeal is dismissed.

Abbott v. Superior Court

69 Cal. App. 660 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1924

(Brown v. Brown, 170 Cal. 1, 3, 4 [ 147 Pac. 1168 ].) As to all matters contained in the interlocutory decree every attack can be made that can be made on a final decree in any other kind of a suit. (Civ. … (Brown v. Brown, supra.) Every principle involved in the rule of stare decisis constrains us not to make such a ruling unless compelled to do so. (Sacramento Bank v. Alcon, 121 Cal. 379, 382 [ 53 Pac. 813 ].)

Conklin v. Woody

33 Cal. App. 554 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1917

Aden, $10.00. ’ ’ The second was of a like kind for automobile use to certain points in Kern County and itemized as being “in case of People v. Reigan, expense of District Attorney’s office, $15.00.” … (County of Modoc v. Spencer, 103 Cal. 498 , [ 37 Pac. 483 ].)

In re Ryner

196 Cal. App. 4th 533 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 2011

V, § 8, subd. (b); Pen. Code, § 3041.2; Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 1203-1204; In re Ross (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 636, 638 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 811 ].) … In conducting this review, the Governor is required to consider the same factors considered by the Board, which are specified by regulation. 1 (Cal. Const, art. V, § 8, subd. (b); Lawrence, supra, at p. 1204 ; Cal.

McKenzie v. Hill

9 Cal. App. 78 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 1908

(Adams v. Hackett, 7 Cal. 201 ; Pacific Bank v. Robinson, 57 Cal. 522 , [ 40 Am. Rep. 120 ]; H errlich v. Kauffman, 99 Cal. 275 , [ 37 Am. St. Rep. 50 , 33 Pac. 857 ].) … (See, also, Niles v. Gonzales, 152 Cal. 90 , [ 92 Pac. 74 ]; O’Rourke v. Finch (Cal. App.), [ 96 Pac. 784 ].) The motion is denied. Cooper, P. J., and Hall, J., concurred.

People v. Blinks

158 Cal. App. 2d 264 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1958

(People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173,179 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) “Mere conjecture, surmise, or suspicion is not the equivalent of reasonable inference and does not constitute proof.” (People v. … Appellant cites two cases involving a drug found in a light well of a building (People v. Bassett, 68 Cal.App.2d 241 [ 156 P.2d 457 ], and People v.

Smith v. Harris

127 Cal. App. 2d 311 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 1954

(Martin v. Potter, 34 Vt. 87 .) … Brown sold a herd of cattle upon which third parties held a chattel mortgage.

Jones v. City of Los Angeles

217 Cal. App. 2d 153 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1963

(Dillon v. Board of Pension Comrs., 18 Cal.2d 427, 431 [ 116 P.2d 37 , 136 A.L.R 800].) … In Dillon v. Board of Pension Comrs., supra, 18 Cal.2d 427, 431 , a police officer had committed suicide in April 1934.

Napa Savings Bank v. County of Napa

17 Cal. App. 545 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1911

(Burke v. Badlam, 57 Cal. 594 ; Germania Trust Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 589 , [ 61 Pac. 178 ].) … But the rule here is as stated in People v.

Nulsen v. Nulsen

3 Cal. App. 2d 407 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1934

.; Brown v. Sterling Furniture Co., 175 Cal. 563 [ 166 Pac. 322 ]; Lewis v. Hammond Lumber Co., 114 Cal. App. 390 [ 300 Pac. 49 ]; Tromanhauser v. Grisemer, 123 Cal. App. 153 [ 11 Pac. (2d) 32 ].) … (Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 39 Cal. App. 738 [ 179 Pac. 697 ].)

City of L.A. v. American Federation of State, County etc.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 2026

The WPERP Board voted to suspend Reciprocity. … On page 3, first line, which reads “Los Angeles Employees Relations Board” should be deleted and should read “Los Angeles Employee Relations Board”; 2.

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2020

Co. v. … As was said in Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg.

In re Copley

196 Cal. App. 4th 427 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 2011

By contrast, the Governor’s constitutional authority is limited to a review of the materials presented by the Board. (Cal. Const., art. V, § 8, subd. (b); see also Pen. Code, § 3041.2, subd. (a).) … As stated by Justice Puglia in analyzing the limitation on the record which can be considered by the Governor, “Although neither [California Constitution, article V,] section 8[, subdivision] (b) nor Penal Code section 3041.2

Reich v. Webb

218 Cal. App. 2d 862 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 1963

As stated in Larwood Co. v. San Diego Fed. … (Larwood Co. v. San Diego Fed. S. & L. Assn., supra, p. 453.) In Woodard v. Broadway Fed. S. & L.

In Re Gray

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 724 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2007

The Rosenkrantz court explained: “Article V, section 8(b), requires that a parole decision by the Governor pursuant to that provision be based upon the same factors the Board is required to consider. … The Constitution Authorizes the Governor to Review the Parole Decisions of the Board Article V, section 8, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution authorizes the Governor to review the Board’s parole decisions in murder

Bryan v. Prescott

57 Cal. App. 779 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1922

In Magee v. … (See, also, Cox v.

Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Commission

209 Cal. App. 3d 732 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1989

In Schad v. … (Paoli v.

Watson v. Greely

67 Cal. App. 328 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 1924

(Coulter v. Pool, 187 Cal. 181, 192 [ 201 Pac. 120 ]; Board v. State, 26 Okl. 366 [ 109 Pac. 563 ]; State v. … (Mills v. Carleton, 29 Wis. 409 ; Bright v. McCullough, 27 Ind. 226 ; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 494 .) ...

Bianchi v. City of San Diego

214 Cal. App. 3d 563 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1989

(See generally, Winn v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 532, 539 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 111 ].) … Board of Retirement, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 798 .) 7 The Traub court cited Preciado v. County of Ventura, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d 783 , with approval. (Traub v. Board of Retirement, supra, at p. 799.)

Ticknor v. City of Sacramento

80 Cal. App. 2d 284 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 1947

The case of McGillicuddy v. … (Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.2d 310, 313 [ 117 P.2d 901 ]; Heard v. Board of Administration etc. of City of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.App.2d 685, 695, 698 [ 104 P.2d 47 ]; Pinion v.