Case law

County of Humboldt v. Shelly

220 Cal. App. 2d 194 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 1963

(Lynch v. Birdwell (1955) 44 Cal.2d 839, 851 [ 285 P.2d 919 ]; Brown v. Regan (1938) 10 Cal.2d 519, 523 [ 75 P.2d 1063 ]; Bisnett v. Hollis (1962) 207 Cal.App.2d 142, 150 [ 24 Cal.Rptr. 231 ].) … In People v.

Kindig v. Palos Verdes Homes Assn.

33 Cal. App. 2d 349 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1939

App. (2d) 239, 240 [ 57 Pac. (2d) 1336 ]; Cohen v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 32 Cal. App. (2d) 337, 350 [ 89 Pac. (2d) 732 ].) … (Bley v. Board of Dental Examiners, 101 Cal. App. 666, 668 [ 282 Pac. 19 ].)

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 ].)

Bandini Estate Co. v. Payne

10 Cal. App. 2d 623 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1935

(Tilden v. Board of Supervisors, 41 Cal. 68 ; Sullivan v. Gage, 145 Cal. 759, 767 [ 79 Pac. 537 ]; La Grange etc. Co. v. Carter, 142 Cal. 560, 565 [ 76 Pac. 241 ]; Hammond Lumber Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 104 Cal. … Proc.; People v. Board of Supervisors, 27 Cal. 655 .) The complaint must consist of a statement of facts ‘ ‘ in ordinary and concise language ”. (Sec. 426, Code Civ. Proc.)

Sargon Enterprises v. Browne George Ross

California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 2017

BC546363) v. BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Fredrick C. Shaller, Judge. … Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 32 [(Moncharsh)], Board of Education v. Round Valley Teachers Assn. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 269, 275–277 [(Round Valley)], and Richey v.

Ellerbroek v. Saddleback Valley Unified School District

125 Cal. App. 3d 348 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 1981

(See Hayward v. Pimental (1895) 107 C. 386 , 390, 40 P. 545 ; Scannell v. Wolff (1948) 85 C.A.2d 489, 491, 195 P.2d 636 ; cf. Weisman v. Board of B. & S. Commrs. (1927) 85 C.A. 493, 494, 259 P. 768 ; Jaquith v. … Employers Council v. Quillin, supra, at p. 221 ; Midstate Theatres, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 204, 212 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 894 ]; Madonna v.

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.

Vang v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State University CA5

California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2020

Filed 12/17/20 Vang v. Board of Trustees of Cal. … (Hughes v. Board of Architectural Examiners (1998) 17 Cal.4th 763, 775 [courts usually adopt the plain meaning of statutory language].)

Estate of Allen

108 Cal. App. 3d 614 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1980

(See Brown, supra, 15 Cal.3d at pp. 849-850; Waite, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 473, fn. 8 .) … Allen’s have long been recognized as community property (French 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 ].)

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.

Educational & Recreational v. Pasadena Unified Sch

65 Cal. App. 3d 775 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1977

Co. v. Shasta Dam etc. … Cases cited by ERS on this issue, namely, Swinerton & Walberg Co. v. City of Inglewood—L.A. County Civic Center Authority, 40 Cal.App.3d 98 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 834 ], and City of Inglewood—L.A. County Civic Center Auth. v.

People v. Bailey

30 Cal. App. 581 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1916

That the statute would run against this writ is unquestioned. ’ ’ It was decided, in Black v. Board of Police Commrs., 17 Cal. … Co. v. King, 2 Sim., N. S., 89 [61 Eng.

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.

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.

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.

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.