Case law

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.

Patane v. Kiddoo

167 Cal. App. 3d 1207 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 1985

(Lipson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362, 374 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 644 P.2d 822 ].) … (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1980) 27 Cal.3d 277, 284 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 122 , 611 P.2d 463 ].) *1215 The judgment is affirmed.

People v. Cain

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 836 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 2000

[Citation.]’ ” (People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 63 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 77 ], citing People v. Whisenand (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391 .) … The Board adopted a set of regulations for the express purpose of enforcing and implementing Government Code section 13959. (Graham v. State Bd. of Control (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 253, 258 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 146 ].

Citizens for Open Access to Sand and Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Ass'n

60 Cal. App. 4th 1053 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1998

(Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 875 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 285 , 587 P.2d 1098 ]; see also Brown v. Rahman (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1458, 1461-1462 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 815 ]; Ceresino v. Fire Ins. … (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 14-15 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ]; Kilgore v. Younger (1982) 30 Cal.3d 770, 784-785 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 640 P.2d 793 ]; State Board of Pharmacy v.

Broyles v. Mahon

72 Cal. App. 484 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 1925

In Board of Education v. … (Hoffman v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. 475 [ 21 Pac. 862 ]; Borchard v. Board of Supervisors, 144 Cal. 10 [ 77 Pac. 708 ].)

People v. Bonner

5 Cal. App. 2d 314 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1935

(People v. Kempley, 205 Cal. 441, 456 [ 271 Pac. 478 ]; People v. Davis, 210 Cal. 540, 549 [ 293 Pac. 32 ].) … (People v. Jensen, 76 Cal. App. 558, 562 [ 244 Pac. 1086 ].)

Yasunaga v. Stockburger

43 Cal. App. 2d 396 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 1941

(Article XX, section 6, Constitution of California; Estate of Bloom, 213 Cal. 575, 581 [ 2 Pac. (2d) 753 ] ; Brandt v. Riley, 139 Cal. App. 250 [ 33 Pac. (2d) 845 ]; Liebman v. Richmond, 103 Cal. … Jur. 578, sec. 37; County of San Luis Obispo v. Gage, 139 Cal. 398 [ 73 Pac. 174 ].)

Vanderstok v. Bank of America

29 Cal. App. 3d 731 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1972

Palm Springs Alpine Estates, 66 Cal.2d 782, 788 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 427 P.2d 805 ]; Vallelunga v. Gomes, 102 Cal.App.2d 374, 382 [ 227 P.2d 550 ].)” (Brown v. Brown, 22 Cal.App.3d 82, 84 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 311 ].) … Relying on Brown v.

King City Union High School District v. Waibel

2 Cal. App. 2d 65 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 1934

Such a board is a continuing body and in legal contemplation the new board is the same board that entered into the contract. (Cope v. County of Sutter, 206 Cal. 445, at 454 [ 274 Pac. 750 ].) … W. 73 ], and Tate v. School District No. 11 of Gentry Co., 324 Mo. 477 [ 23 S. W. (2d) 1013 , 70 A. L. R. 771].

EL DORADO UN. HIGH SCH DIST v. Ct. of Placerville

144 Cal. App. 3d 123 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 21, 1983

(h)(4); International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 265, 271 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 875 ].) … In Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 265 [ 104 Cal.

Alexander v. Manton Joint Union School District

73 Cal. App. 252 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1925

In White v. Wohlenberg, 113 Iowa, 236 [ 84 N. W. 1026 ], it is said: “Plaintiff had a contract to teach for the term of one year. … In Biddick v.

City and County of San Francisco v. Pacello

85 Cal. App. 3d 637 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 1978

The delay also appears in the stipulated facts and the file of the Board. Delay alone will not constitute laches. It must also appear that some prejudice to the defendant was caused thereby. (Abbott v. … Bank of America (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 311, 314 [ 223 P.2d 514 ]), where the delay caused important evidence before the Board to become unavailable, prejudice is manifest. (Maguire v. Hibernia S. & L.

Saso v. Furtado

104 Cal. App. 2d 759 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1951

But there must be read into these agreements the condition that the transfers must be subject to the approval of the board and subject to its rules. As said in Leboire v. … Here it is simply an agreement to retransfer the license, subject, of course, to the board’s rules. Nor does the case of Hooper v. Barranti, 81 Cal.App.2d 570 [ 184 P.2d 688 ], apply.

City of San Jose v. State of California

45 Cal. App. 4th 1802 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1996

(Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 180 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 487 , 624 P.2d 1215 ], quoting Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento v. … Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 180 ; see also California Teacher’s Association v.

Huber v. Henry J. Kaiser Co.

71 Cal. App. 2d 278 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1945

(Brown v. McCuan, 56 Cal.App.2d 35 [ 132 P. 2d 838 ], citing Hatfield v. Levy Brothers, 18 Cal.2d 798 [ 117 P.2d 841 ] ; Weis v. Davis, 28 Cal.App.2d 240 [ 82 P.2d 487 ]; Gillette v. … In Brown v.

Sproul v. Vallee

California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2025

In Brown v. … (Brown, at p. 216.)

Kanarek v. Davidson

85 Cal. App. 3d 341 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 1978

(Weil v. Barthel (1955) 45 Cal.2d 835, 837 [ 291 P.2d 30 ]; Chavez v. Times-Mirror Co. (1921) 185 Cal. 20, 23 [ 195 P. 666 ]; Saltares v. Kristovich (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 504, 510 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 866 ].) … (Dupuy v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 410, 416-417 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 900 , 541 P.2d 540 ]; Horack v. Franchise Tax Board (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 363, 367 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 717 ]; cf. T. M. Cobb Co. v.

Huey v. City of Los Angeles

137 Cal. App. 48 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1934

Proc., sec. 1963, subd. 15; Los Angeles Athletic Club v. Long Beach, 128 Cal. App. 427, 430 [ 17 Pac. (2d) 1061 ].) … (Beeson v. City of Los Angeles, 115 Cal. App. 122, 129 [ 300 Pac. 993 ].)

Iglesia Evangelica Latina, Inc. v. Southern Pacific Latin American Dist. of the Assemblies of God

173 Cal. App. 4th 420 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 2009

In Jones v. … As a matter of canon law, that vestry became the board of the parish corporation.” (Ibid.) New v.

Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure

6 Cal. App. 5th 160 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2016

(See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1356 [“[T]he determination of EIR adequacy is essentially pragmatic. … Meserve Counsel for amicus curiae of Center CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS for Biological Diversity, Coalition for Jan Chatten-Brown, Douglas P.