Case law

Schultheiss v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.

11 Cal. App. 2d 525 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1936

(Benjamin v. Noonan, 207 Cal. 279, 283 [ 277 Pac. 1045 ] ; Krause v. Rarity, 210 Cal. 644, 650 [ 293 Pac. 62 , 77 A. L. R. 1327]; Burtt v. Bank of California Nat. Assn., 211 Cal. 548, 551 [ 296 Pac. 68 ] ; Lindenbaum v. … Barbour, 213 Cal. 277, 284, 285 [ 2 Pac. (2d) 161 ]; Andreen v. Escondido Citrus Union, 93 Cal. App. 182, 187 [ 269 Pac. 556 ] ; Skaggs v. Wiley, 108 Cal. App. 429, 433 [ 292 Pac. 132 ]; Clark v. Bowers, 116 Cal.

Grant v. Adams

69 Cal. App. 3d 127 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1977

(See Holbrook v. Board of Education, 37 Cal.2d 316, 334 [ 231 P.2d 853 ]; Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal.2d 546, 555-556 [ 261 P.2d 261 ], overruled on *133 a different point in Bekiaris v. … In Board of Regents v.

In Re Vasquez

170 Cal. App. 4th 370 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2009

The Governor’s decision to reverse a grant of parole by the Board is governed by the same factors that guide the Board’s decision (Cal. Const, art. V, § 8, subd. … The Governor’s constitutional authority is limited to a review of the evidence presented to the Board. (Cal. Const., art. V, § 8, subd.

Silva v. Superior Court

14 Cal. App. 4th 562 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1993

Neither Perales [v. Department of Human Resources Dev. (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 332 ( 108 Cal.Rptr. 167 )], Pereyda [v. State Personnel Board (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 47 ( 92 Cal.Rptr. 746 )], nor Skelly [v. … (Rich v. State Board of Optometry (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 591, 607 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 512 ]; see also California Mfrs. Assn. v.

Starkey v. Market Street Railway Co.

90 Cal. App. 249 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 20, 1928

The case of Connor v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. … In Hanton v. Pacific Electric Ry.

Perata v. Oakland Scavenger Co.

111 Cal. App. 2d 378 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1952

No. 1500 v. … In Nichols v.

Niceley v. County of Madera

111 Cal. App. 731 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1931

of Yolo v. … Practically the same holding is had in Humiston v. Shaffer, 145 Cal. 195 [ 78 Pac. 651 ] ; Victors v. Kelsey, 31 Cal. App. 796 [ 161 Pac. 1006 ] ; County of Yolo v. Joyce, 156 Cal. 429 [ 105 Pac. 125 ]; Rocca v.

Braude v. City of Los Angeles

226 Cal. App. 3d 83 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1990

v. … The court concluded “a board member is not a citizen-taxpayer for the purpose of having standing to sue the very board on which she sits.” (Id. at p. 801.) In Green v.

In Re Carlton

53 Cal. App. 225 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1921

In the case of People v. Lee, 36 Cal. … Obviously, neither the board nor the prisoner is concerned with the minimum penalty when the time at which the board may determine what the maximum penalty shall be has been reached.

Botts v. Simpson

73 Cal. App. 2d 648 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1946

Board of Education, 64 Cal.App. 757 , at page 763 [ 222 P. 854 ].) Appellant also cites the ease of Klein v. … The case of Owens v. Board of Education, 68 Cal.App. 403 [ 229 P. 881 ], appears to be more nearly in point.

Town of Atherton v. Superior Court

159 Cal. App. 2d 417 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 17, 1958

In Hall v. … Hall v.

Dakota Gardens Apartment Investors" B" v. Pudwill

75 Cal. App. 3d 346 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1977

Pace (1887) 57 Ala. 521 ; Northrup v. McGill (1873) 27 Mich. 234 ; Lyon v. Yates (N.Y. 1868) 52 Barb. 237 ; Edmundson v. Nuttall (1864) 144 Eng.Rep. 113.) … Brown (G. A.), P.

People v. Williams

184 Cal. App. 4th 142 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2010

Co. v. Chiu (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 438, 445 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 54 ].) That is not true here. VOE is not a tax board authorized to charge for penalties and interest for nonpayment of payroll taxes. … However, it appears the State Board of Equalization did not present any such evidence to justify the claim for penalties and interest in People v. Boudames, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 45 .

Fuller v. San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District

242 Cal. App. 2d 52 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1966

(Parker v. Bowron, supra; Grant v. Board of Medical Examiners, 232 Cal.App.2d 820, 827 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 270 ]; Silva v. City of Cypress, 204 Cal.App.2d 374, 376 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 453 ].) … Alcan Pacific Co., 222 Cal.App.2d 626 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 354 ]; Board of Social Welfare v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.2d 98 [ 162 P.2d 627 ]; Gogerty v.

Dore v. County of Ventura

23 Cal. App. 4th 320 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1994

The board’s findings, which incorporate the factual findings stated in staff reports, satisfy the requirements set forth in Topanga. The case of Guinnane v. … Desert Turf Club v. Board of Supervisors (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 446 [ 296 P.2d 882 ], is also inapposite.

Selby v. Oakdale Irrigation District

140 Cal. App. 171 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1934

In Carter v. … That the board of directors .has no power to diminish the bond fund or the bond interest fund by the transfer of moneys is held in the cases of Hewell v. Hogan, supra, and Carter v. Tilghman, supra.

O'Keefe v. Atascadero County Sanitation District

21 Cal. App. 3d 719 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1971

(Sailors v. Kent Board of Education (1967) 387 U.S. 105 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 650 , 87 S.Ct. 1549 ].) … (Temescal Water Co. v. Dept. Public Works (1955) 44 Cal.2d 90, 107 [ 280 P.2d 1 ]; Hilton v. Board of Supervisors (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 708, 717 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 754 ]; Mull 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.

Blue Ridge Insurance Co. v. Superior Court

202 Cal. App. 3d 339 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 1988

(Ibid., italics added.) 7 Brown v. … (Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 180 Cal.App.3d at p. 705 .)

People v. Bishop

166 Cal. App. 2d 687 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 2, 1959

(Kidroski v. … Concerning this, the court in People v.