Case law

In Re Borgogna

121 Cal. App. 3d 937 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1981

Herrick testified she has located at least one suitable facility for Andrew, Toni Long’s Board and Care Home in Cypress, where she is certain he would do well. … Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Cologne, J., concurred. The petitions of both parties for a hearing by the Supreme Court were denied August 19, 1981.

Gluck v. City and County of San Francisco

California Court of Appeal · May 30, 2025

(City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (2025) 604 U.S. ___ [145 S.Ct. 704, 707] (Environmental Protection Agency) [detailing combined system]; Edward Brown & Sons v. … (See, e.g., Edward Brown & Sons, supra, 36 Cal.2d at p. 274; County of Riverside v. Whitlock (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 863, 874, fn. 9 [referencing public improvements to “storm and sanitary sewers”], Ramseier v.

People v. Perez

51 Cal. App. 4th 1168 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1996

(Brown v. Texas (1979) 443 U.S. 47, 50 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 361 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 ].) … Harbor Hut Restaurant, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d 1151 ); board a vessel to inspect the fishing haul (People v.

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District v. Davis

25 Cal. App. 4th 134 · California Court of Appeal · May 25, 1994

(Board of Supervisors v. McMahon, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at pp. 296-297.) … (Carlton Browne & Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 35, 43 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 118 ].)

Oil Tool Exchange, Inc. v. Schuh

67 Cal. App. 2d 288 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1944

In Brown v. … (See, also, Forbes v. Board of Missions, 17 Cal.2d 332, 338 [ 110 P.2d 3 ]; Bee v. Cooper, 217 Cal. 96 [ 17 P.2d 740 ].) In Elizalde v.

Gai v. City Council

63 Cal. App. 3d 381 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 1976

In Walker v. … (See Weston v. State (1933) 262 N.Y. 46 [ 186 N.E. 197, 200 , 88 A.L.R. 1219 ].) Respondent’s reliance on Alameda County Employees’ Assn. v.

In Re Hare

189 Cal. App. 4th 1278 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 2010

V, § 8, subd. (b).) 7 The Governor’s decision to affirm, *1290 modify or reverse the decision of the Board rests on the same factors that guide the Board’s decision (Cal. Const., art. V, § 8, subd. … V, § 8, subd. (b); Pen. Code, § 3041.2, subd.

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.

McRae v. Pine

25 Cal. App. 594 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1914

Rep. 418 , 15 Pac. 318 ] ; Reed v. Collins, 5 Cal. App. 494, 498 , [ 90 Pac. 973 ].) The power to prohibit the business includes the power and right to regulate by the imposition of conditions and restrictions. … (State v. Commissioners of Phillips County, 26 Kan. 419 ; quoted with approval in Wiedwald v. Dodson, 95 Cal. 450, 454 , [ 30 Pac. 580 ].)

Butler v. Rio Hondo Community College Dist. CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 2015

The errors implicated potential violations of the Ralph M. 3 Brown Act3 (Brown Act) insofar as ASB agendas did not correctly reflect the actions of the ASB Governing Board … (Serri v.

Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Superior Court

195 Cal. App. 3d 652 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1987

(Yamaha, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 1240 , citing Morton v. Superior Court (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 977, 982 [ 88 Cal.App.3d 533 ]; Karlin v. Zalta (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 953, 980 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 379 ].) … Many cases support this proposition; “this legislatively mandated policy promoting the resolution of disputes by specialized boards and fostering judicial economy has been well explained . . . .” (Robinson v.

Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Superior Court

208 Cal. App. 2d 803 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1962

California Toll Bridge Authority, supra; Sherman v. Quinn (1948) 31 Cal.2d 661, 664 [ 192 P.2d 17 ] ; Browning v. … While mandamus will not lie to control the discretion exercised by a public officer or board (Lindell v. Board of Permit Appeals, supra, 23 Cal.2d 303 ; Faulkner v.

County of Marin Association of Firefighters v. Marin County Employees Retirement Ass'n

30 Cal. App. 4th 1638 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1994

(See Neet v. … (See Van Hook v. Board of Retirement (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 714, 718-719 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 186 ].)

People v. Sonleitner

185 Cal. App. 2d 350 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1960

Bank v. … Co. v.

Sanchez-Scott v. Alza Pharmaceuticals

103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 410 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2001

Brown (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 283, 291, fn. 5 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 749 ].) In De May , a physician took a nonprofessional male, identified by name in the opinion only as a Mr. … Board of Supervisors (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, 70 [ 187 P.2d 686 ], disapproved on another point in Bailey v. County of Los Angeles (1956) 46 Cal.2d 132, 139 [ 293 P.2d 449 ].)

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 .) ...

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.

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.

In re Gomez

190 Cal. App. 4th 1291 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 2010

The Governor’s decision to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Board rests on the same factors that guide the Board’s decision (Cal. Const., art. V, § 8, subd. … This court’s nonpublished opinion in People v. Gomez (Dec. 19, 1991, G010300) recites facts consistent with petitioner’s version of the events as it relates to what he told Pompa after the killing.

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 ].)