Case law

Guidotti v. County of Yolo

214 Cal. App. 3d 1552 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 1989

(See Nelson v. Board of Supervisors (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 25, 29 [ 235 Cal.Rptr. 305 ]; Berkeley v. Alameda County Bd. of Supervisors (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 961, 971 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 540 ].) … In fact in Clay v.

Imig v. Ferrar

70 Cal. App. 3d 48 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1977

Merrihew, 42 Cal.App.3d 319, 324 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 781 ] (school board); Martin v. … (Hardy v. Vial, supra, 48 Cal.2d 577, 580 (fired as professor at a state college, the plaintiff was reinstated by the State Personnel Board); Melvin v.

Burnham v. Abrahamson

21 Cal. App. 248 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 1913

(Von Schmidt v. Von Schmidt, 104 Cal. 550 , [ 38 Pac. 361 ]; Johnston v. Callaghan, 146 Cal. 214 , [ 79 Pac. 870 ] ; Galvin v. Palmer, 134 Cal. 427 , [ 66 Pac. 572 ]; Butler v. … As is said in Chase v.

Castro v. Superior Court

9 Cal. App. 3d 675 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1970

(Keyishian v. Board of Regents of New York, supra, 385 U.S. 589, 609 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 629, 644 ].) … Literally it is thus apparent that the United States Supreme Court must have “wilfully disturbed” the public schools affected by its holding in Brown v.

Hook v. Southern California Waiters Alliance

158 Cal. App. 2d 556 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1958

(Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs., 18 Cal. 2d 427, 431 [ 116 P.2d 37 , 136 A.L.R. 800 ]; see Skaggs v. City of Los Angeles, 43 Cal.2d 497, 500 [ 275 P.2d 9 ].) … In Weber v.

People v. Burns

270 Cal. App. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1969

In People v. … Evidence of Separate Crime by Codefendant During the trial the People called Bruce Brown as a wit *251 ness.

Hansen v. Carr

73 Cal. App. 511 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 1925

In Burr v. … In Keith v. Hammel, 29 Cal.

People v. Noriega

59 Cal. App. 4th 311 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1997

(See, e.g., People v. … (People v.

Norcross v. Winters

209 Cal. App. 2d 207 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1962

In Drennan v. … Justice Peters in Klose v.

Harvey v. County of Kern

107 Cal. App. 590 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 1930

In Marron v. County of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 244, 246 [ 96 Pac. 814, 815 ], the case of Arbois v. … (Arbois v.

People v. Jones

126 Cal. App. 3d 308 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1981

He saw the brown car parked near a freeway underpass. He testified he heard three gunshots after he turned and drove about one-half block from the corner where he had seen the brown car. … The dispatch indicated the suspects, two Negro males, were last seen leaving the area in a brown 1965 Oldsmobile or Pontiac sedan, California license 276 ABA.

DeCelle v. City of Alameda

186 Cal. App. 2d 574 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1960

A review of Sutton v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1956), 46 Cal.2d 791 [ 298 P.2d 857 ] and Sprague v. Industrial Acc. … Committee v. Agricultural Prorate Com. (1941), 17 Cal.2d 204 [ 109 P.2d 918 ] ; Sale v. Railroad Com. (1940), 15 Cal.2d 612 [ 104 P.2d 38 ] ; Cowell v. Industrial Acc.

In re Jenson

California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 2018

(People v. … However, in March 2015, Governor Brown reversed the board’s decision. The Governor described Jenson’s murder of Walker as “senseless.” The Governor continued, “Mr.

Botney v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.

55 Cal. App. 3d 49 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1976

The board has appealed the judgment insofar as it determined that in the event of further proceedings the Board must indemnify S&H. … (See State Tax Commission v. Ryan-Evans Drug Stores (1960) 89 Ariz. 18 [ 357 P.2d 607 , 90 A.L.R.2d 332 ]; Benner Tea Co. v. Iowa State Tax. Com., 252 Iowa 843 [ 109 N.W.2d 39 ]; A. W. Cullum & Co. v.

County of Contra Costa v. State of California

177 Cal. App. 3d 62 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1986

(Santa Clara County v. Superior Court (1949) 33 Cal.2d 552, 559 [ 203 P.2d 1 ]; Johnston v. Board of Supervisors (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, 70 [ 187 P.2d 686 ].) And courts cannot compel legislative action. (City Council v. … A proceeding before the board will promote judicial efficiency by unearthing the relevant evidence and providing a record which the court may review. (See Edgren v.

In Re Wen Lee

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 931 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 2006

The Governor Reverses the Board In reviewing the board’s decision, the Governor must consider the same factors as the board. (Cal. Const., art V, § 8, subd. … Since voters in 1988 enacted article V, section 8, subdivision (b) of the state Constitution empowering the Governor to review the board’s decisions, we know of only two cases that have overturned a Governor’s reversal of

Fresno City High School District v. Dillon

34 Cal. App. 2d 636 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 1939

In Smith v. … In Price v.

Boericke v. Weise

68 Cal. App. 2d 407 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1945

(Whitehead v. Sweet, 126 Cal. 67 [ 58 P. 376 ].) … (DeGarmo v. Goldman, 19 Cal.2d 755 [ 123 P. 2d 1 ].) Whether plaintiffs are within the application of the maxim is primarily a question of fact. (Pon v. Wittman, 147 Cal. 280 [ 81 P. 984 , 2 L.RA.N.S. 683].)

Javidzad v. City of Santa Monica

204 Cal. App. 3d 524 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1988

. *527 In Nash v. … The City and the Board appealed that decision, which was reviewed in City of Santa Monica v. Yarmark (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 153 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 732 ].

Elmore v. Imperial Irrigation District

159 Cal. App. 3d 185 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1984

In National Audubon Society v. … In Kentfield v.