Case law

Davis v. Myre

228 Cal. App. 2d 616 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1964

BROWN (R. … In Brown v.

Hobe v. Madera Irrigation District

128 Cal. App. 2d 9 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 1954

“(b) The board deems the exclusion to be for the best interest of the district. ...” *12 In the case of J. & W. C. Shull, Inc. v. Merced Irr. … In IngUn v.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hartle

59 Cal. App. 3d 852 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1976

Co. v. … Brown (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 120, 122 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Hale v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 177, 180-181 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 819 ]; Paul Masson Co. v. Colonial Ins.

McLaughlin v. Superior Court

29 Cal. App. 3d 35 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1972

We conclude, therefore, that it was both confusing and misleading to include in the board’s letter to petitioner a warning which only pertains to action taken upon a claim. 10 *40 In Viles v. … (Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco (1951) 101 Cal.App.2d 558, 564-565 [ 225 P.2d 988 ]; Mendibles v. City of San Diego (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 502, 506 [ 224 P.2d 42 ]; Fredrichsen v.

Schecter v. County of Los Angeles

258 Cal. App. 2d 391 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1968

An administrative board cannot legally confer upon its employees authority that under the law may be exercised only by the board. (House v. Los Angeles County, 104 Cal. 73, 79 [ 37 P. 796 ]; Holley v. … County and Board rely heavily on the case of Johnston v. Board of Supervisors, 31 Cal.2d 66, 72 [ 187 P.2d 686 ], to bolster their position.

Rivero v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 2003

In Ludwig v. … In Bowling v.

Hasselbach v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

167 Cal. App. 2d 662 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1959

The decision of the appeals board was therefore correct and it matters not that the reasons given by it were erroneous. (Sears v. Rule, 27 Cal.2d 131, 140 [ 163 P.2d 443 ]; *669 Difani v. … Church v. State Board of Equalization, 109 Cal.App.2d 99 [ 240 P.2d 322 ] and Steiger v. Board of Supervisors, 143 Cal.App.2d 352 at 358 [ 300 P.2d 210 ] to uphold their contention.

Luxor Cab Co. v. Cahill

21 Cal. App. 3d 551 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1971

Board and must be sustained if supported by substantial evidence (Greif v. … State Personnel Board, 136 Cal.App.2d 904, 909 [ 289 P.2d 863 ]; Wisler v. Cal.

Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

42 Cal. App. 3d 916 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 1974

(Morrison v. State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal.3d 214, 238 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 461 P.2d 375 ]; Jones v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 124, 127 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 554 ]; Rullman v. State Farm Mut. … Exch. v. Ind. Acc.

Crum v. City of Los Angeles

110 Cal. App. 508 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1930

board. … In support of this contention the defendants cite Goetz v. Goldbaum, 4 Cal. Unrep. 749 [ 37 Pac. 646 ] , Resetar v. Leonardi, 61 Cal. App. 765 [ 216 Pac. 71 ], Cross v. Bouck, 175 Cal. 253 [ 165 Pac. 702 ], McDougald v.

Empire Waste Management v. Town of Windsor

67 Cal. App. 4th 714 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 1998

(Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors (1994) 8 Cal.4th 765, 776-777 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 814 , 884 P.2d 645 ].) … (DeVita v. County of Napa, supra, 9 Cal.4th 763, 775-776; Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal.4th 765, 777 .)

Ruggiero v. Los Angeles City Unified School District

33 Cal. App. 3d 970 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1973

(Heckley v. Board of Education (1959) 53 Cal.2d 218, 220-221 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 347 P.2d 4 ]; Frates v. Burnett (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 63, 69 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 731 ]; Board of Education v. … (Fry v. Board of Education (1941) 17 Cal.2d 753, 760 [ 112 P.2d 229 ].)

Kirk v. County of San Luis Obispo

156 Cal. App. 3d 453 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1984

(Bright v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 191, 193-194 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 758 ].) … (Resource Defense Fund v. County of Santa Cruz, (1982) 133 *460 Cal.App.3d 800 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 371 ]; Great Western Sav. & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 403 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 359 ]; Drummey v.

In Re HD

174 Cal. App. 4th 768 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 2009

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. H.D., Defendant and Appellant. No. H033462. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District. … Those functions reside with the Youth Authority Board (now Board of Parole Hearings) created by Senate Bill No. 459 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.). (Stats. 2003, ch. 4, §§ 16, 20, amending §§ 1719, 1723.)

County of Los Angeles v. Hurlbut

44 Cal. App. 2d 88 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1941

(Mintzer v. Schilling, 117 Cal. 361, 363 [ 49 Pac. 209 ]; Argyle Dredging Co. v. Chambers, 40 Cal. App. 332, 342 [ 181 Pac. 84 ].) … (McDonald v. Conniff, 99 Cal. 386 [ 34 Pac. 71 ]; Cody v.

Hutcherson v. Alexander

264 Cal. App. 2d 126 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1968

(Griffin v. Northridge, 67 Cal.App.2d 69, 76 [ 153 P.2d 800 ] ; McIvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co., 76 Cal.App.2d 247, 254 [ 172 P.2d 758 ]). … Code, § 3283; Keys v. Romley, 64 Cal.2d 396, 411 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 412 P.2d 529 ]; but compare actions at law: Hopkins *135 v. Western Pac. R.R. Co., 50 Cal. 190 ; Bigley v. Nunan, 53 Cal. 403 ; Ford v.

New Plumbing Contractors v. Edwards, Sooy & Byron

121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 472 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 2002

(Western Polymer Technology, Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 14, 24 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 78 ].) … Co. v. Ridout Roofing Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 495, 504-505 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 286 ].)

Masters v. San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Ass'n

32 Cal. App. 4th 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1995

(See Tielsch v. … In Johnson v.

Zumwalt v. Trustees of California State Colleges

33 Cal. App. 3d 665 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1973

(Bogacki v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 5 Cal.3d 771; see also, Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal.2d 546 [ 261 P.2d 261 ].) … Recent decisions of the federal Supreme Court, Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, and Perry v.

Anderson v. Calaveras Central Mining Corp.

13 Cal. App. 2d 338 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 21, 1936

(Bogart v. George K. Porter Co., supra; Daniels v. Johnson, 129 Cal. 415 [ 61 Pac. 1107 , 79 Am. St. Rep. 123 ] ; Sherwood & Sherwood v. Gill & Lutz, 36 Cal. App. 707 [ 173 Pac. 171]; Davis v. Davis, 19 Cal. … (Bailey v. Hoffman, 99 Cal. App. 347 [ 278 Pac. 498 ]; Egan v. Bishop, 8 Cal. App. (2d) 119 [ 47 Pac. (2d) 500 ]; Shanklin v. Scribner, 62 Cal. App. 487 [ 217 Pac. 130 ].)