Case law

Chapin v. City Commission

149 Cal. App. 2d 40 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1957

(Wallace v. City of Fresno, 42 Cal.2d 180, 185 [ 265 P.2d 884 ]; see Packer v. Board of Retirement, 35 Cal.2d 212, 214, 218-219 [ 217 P.2d 660 ].)” … The writ may be issued to compel a municipal board and officers to do an act specifically enjoined by law. (Packer v. Board of Retirement, 35 Cal.2d 212 [ 217 P.2d 660 ] ; Sweesy v. Los Angeles etc.

DEPT. OF WATER AND POWER OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.

252 Cal. App. 2d 744 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1967

(Gardner v. Industrial Acc. Com., 73 Cal.App.2d 361 [ 166 P.2d 362 ] [bartender, after working hours, injured while ejecting man]; Scott v. … Corp. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 37 Cal.App.2d 567, 573-574 [ 99 P.2d 1089 ] ; Pacific Indem. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 26 Cal.2d 509, 513-514 [ 159 P.2d 625 ]; Scott v.

Chilson v. Jerome

102 Cal. App. 635 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 1929

(People v. Pacific Implement Co., 130 Cal. 442 [ 62 Pac. 739 ]; McNeil v. Kingsbury, 190 Cal. 406 [ 213 Pac. 50 ]; Riley v. Forbes, 193 Cal. 740 [ 227 Pac. 768 ]; Bateman v. … (People v. Pacific Implement Co., supra; In re Johnson (Ex parte Cannon), 167 Cal. 142 [ 138 Pac. 740 ] ; In re Mitchell, 120 Cal. 384 [ 52 Pac. 799 ]; Board of Education v. Talbert, 52 Cal. App. 657 [ 199 Pac. 555 ].)

People v. I.B.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 2024

(Kenneally v. Medical Board (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 489, 495.) … (See Samples v. Brown (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 787, 807 [“ ‘ “ ‘ “Where there are ‘plausible reasons’ for [the classification] ‘our inquiry is at an end.’ ” ’ ” ’ ”].)

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].)

Fenning v. Glenfed, Inc.

40 Cal. App. 4th 1285 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 1995

Thus, in Siegel v. … (Siegel v. American Savings & Loan Assn., supra, at pp. 960-961.) The Siegel court also held that the state law claims were not impliedly preempted by the Bank Board’s occupation of the field.

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.

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 ].)

Paulino v. Civil Service Commission

175 Cal. App. 3d 962 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 1985

(Macfarlane v. Dept. Alcoholic Bev. Control (1958) 51 Cal.2d 84, 91 [ 330 P.2d 769 ]; Brown v. Gordon (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 659, 667 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 901 ].) … (Blake v. State Personnel Board (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 541, 554 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 50 ].)

People v. Gibson

160 Cal. App. 2d 535 · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 1958

He said at the trial the natural color of his hair had been restored (brown) due to his confinement in jail. … (People v. Glaze, 139 Cal. 154 [ 72 P. 965 ]; Carpenter v. Ashley, 148 Cal. 422, 426 [ 83 P. 444 , 7 Ann.Cas. 601].) Any evidence offered by way of impeachment must be competent and cannot be based on hearsay.

Krusesky v. Baugh

138 Cal. App. 3d 562 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1982

State Board of Education (1962) 57 Cal.2d 167, 172-174 [ 18 Cal. Rptr. 369 , 367 P.2d 865 ].) … (See Brown v. Bleiberg (1982) 32 Cal.3d 426, 437 [ 186 Cal. Rptr. 228 , 651 P.2d 815 ]; Olivas v. Weiner (1954) 127 Cal.

Savage v. Sox

118 Cal. App. 2d 479 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 1953

(County of Mariposa v. Merced Irr. Dist., 32 Cal.2d 467, 476 [ 196 P.2d 920 ].) In Dierssen v. … State Board of Equal., 6 Cal.2d 557 [ 59 P.2d 119 ]; Laisne v. State Board of Optometry, 19 Cal.2d 831 [ 123 P.2d 457 ]; Thomas v. California Emp. Stab. Com., 39 Cal.2d 501 [ 247 P.2d 561 ].

DeMille v. County of Los Angeles

25 Cal. App. 2d 506 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1938

A somewhat similar question to that which we are now considering was presented to the court in the case of Rittersbacher v. Board of Supervisors, 220 Cal. 535 [ 32 Pac. (2d) 135 ]. … Humphrey, 24 Mich. 170 ; Lefferts v. Board of Supervisors, 21 Wis. 688; Milwaukee Iron Co. 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.

California Highway Commission v. Ballard

77 Cal. App. 404 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1926

W. 525 ]; Dailey v. Board of Public Works, 9 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 118, 11 Cinc. L. Bul. 25 ; Northup v. Hoyt, 31 Or. 524 [ 49 Pac. 754 ] ; Wolff Chemical Co. v. Philadelphia, 217 Pa. St. 215 [ 66 Atl. 344 ]; State v. … The same principle was recognized in the case of Collins v. Board of Supervisors, 99 Cal, 17 [ 37 Am. St. Rep. 17 , 21 L. R. A. 474, 33 Pac. 753 ]. See, also, Blanding v. Barr, 13 Cal. 343 ; Creighton v.

People v. Etheridge

241 Cal. App. 4th 800 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 2015

As in [People v.] … (People v. Pieters (1991) 52 Cal.3d 894, 899.)

Migliore v. Mid-Century Insurance

118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2002

Dennis Brown of the Catastrophe Center was appointed by respondent to evaluate the claim. … This dollar amount is based upon the estimate completed by your adjuster, Dennis Brown.

Harvard Investment Co. v. Gap Stores, Inc.

156 Cal. App. 3d 704 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1984

Clearly, the application of the Bennett v. Brown rationale is appropriate under the present circumstances. … (See, e.g., Shain v. City of Albany, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d 294, 297-300 ; Brown v.

Batten v. WCAB, Long Beach Memorial

California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 2015

ADJ3781289) Petitioner, v. … ADJ3781289) Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; LONG BEACH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al., Respondents.

Bearman v. Superior Court

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 644 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 2004

(See Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669 , 680 *469 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 55 ] (Gherardini).) … The Medical Board correctly observes that the filing of a lawsuit may be deemed a waiver of privacy as to matters embraced by the action. (See Britt v.