Case law

Clark v. State Personnel Board

61 Cal. App. 2d 800 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1943

In the case of Alexander v. … (Alexander v. State Personnel Board, supra.)

Nilsson v. State Personnel Board

36 Cal. App. 2d 186 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1939

Heretofore petitioner, a civil service employee, had been reinstated in the department of agriculture (Nilsson v. State Personnel Board, 25 Cal. … So, in overruling Howe v. Southrey, supra, the court, in McPherson v.

More v. Board of Supervisors

31 Cal. App. 388 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1916

Section 4 of article I made it the duty of the board of supervisors, at its first regular meeting after noon of the first Monday after the first day of January, 1915, to appoint each and all of the county officers provided … It is therein provided (subd. 4) that county charters shall provide “for the powers and duties of boards of supervisors and all other county officers, for their removal and for the consolidation and segregation of county

Tabory v. State Personnel Board

208 Cal. App. 2d 543 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 1962

State Personnel Board, 37 Cal.2d 634 [234 P.2d 981]; Genser v. State Personnel Board, 112 Cal.App.2d 77, 82 [ 245 P.2d 1090 ]; Nelson v. Department of Corrections, 110 Cal.App.2d 331 [ 242 P.2d 906 ].) In Martin v. … The findings of the Board adopted in part the language of the Board’s pleading, as permitted by the Government Code, and were in this ease entirely sufficient. (Webster v.

Sklar v. Franchise Tax Board

185 Cal. App. 3d 616 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1986

Rptr. 711 , 683 P.2d 710 ]; United States Steel Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board (1983) 144 Cal. App.3d 473, 479 [ 192 Cal. Rptr. 677 ]; Women Organized for Employment v. Stein, supra, 114 Cal. App.3d 133, 137 .) … Rptr. 504 ]; accord, e.g., Eller Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 89 Cal. App.3d 76, 82-83 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 358 ]; Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69 Cal. App.3d 228, 235 [ 138 Cal.

Karbach v. Board of Education

39 Cal. App. 3d 355 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1974

Dist. v. De Caristo, 33 Cal.App.2d 666, 672 [ 92 P.2d 668 ]: “Such a statute should be strictly construed.” (See also Board of Trustees v. Porini, 263 Cal.App.2d 784, 789 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 73 ].) … Its effect was considered in Ward v. Fremont Unified Sch. Dist., 276 Cal.App.2d 313 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 815 ]. The court said, in that respect, at page 322: “. . .

Brown v. Regents of University of California

151 Cal. App. 3d 982 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1984

(Rose v. Medtronics, Inc. (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 150, 154 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 16 ]; Vasquez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 813; La Sala v. … (Daar v.

Horack v. Franchise Tax Board

18 Cal. App. 3d 363 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1971

(Aronoff v. Franchise Tax Board, 60 Cal.2d 177 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 383 P.2d 409 ]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ]; Noonan v. … In Field v.

Comstock v. Board of Trustees

20 Cal. App. 2d 731 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1937

Our problem was faced by the court in Alexander v. Manton J. U. School Dist., (1927) 82 Cal. … Expressions reiterating this conclusion are found in Blalock v. Ridgway, (1928) 92 Cal. App. 132, 136 [ 267 Pac. 713 ], concerned with section 1609, supra, and in Thibaut v. Key, (1932) 126 Cal.

Hilliker v. Board of Trustees

91 Cal. App. 521 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 1928

"Wheat, as members of the Board of Trustees or City Council of the City of Seal Beach. … (Boyd v. Burrel, 60 Cal. 280 ; Fay v. Stubenrauch, 141 Cal. 573 [ 75 Pac. 174 ]; Biaggi v. Ramont, 189 Cal. 675 [ 209 Pac. 892 ].) As said in Fay v.

Child v. State Personnel Board

97 Cal. App. 2d 467 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 1950

Equally fatal to plaintiff’s cause was his failure, as appears from the face of his complaint, to petition for rehearing before the respondent board. As this court stated in Clark v. … (See Alexander v. State Personnel Board, 22 Cal.2d 198 [ 137 P.2d 433 ].) Additionally we stated in Jensky v.

Brown v. Jack & Jeff Transfer Co.

102 Cal. App. 2d 559 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1951

In the Fred Brown action, defendants cross-complained for damages to the truck. The cases were consolidated for trial. … (Nagamatsu v. Roher, 10 Cal.App.2d 752, 755 [ 53 P.2d 174 ] [and eases cited]; see, also, Siegell v. York, 84 Cal.App.2d 383, 387 [ 191 P.2d 50 ].) As stated in Hawthorne v. Gunn, 123 Cal.

Cohen v. Board of Supervisors

20 Cal. App. 3d 236 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1971

Subsequent to the time the parties filed their respective briefs in this case, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 113 , 91 S.Ct. 780 ]. … See Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., supra [ 339 U.S. 306 ( 94 L.Ed. 865 , 70 S.Ct. 652 )].

Keely v. State Personnel Board

53 Cal. App. 3d 88 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1975

(Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143, fn. 10 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 481 P.2d 242 ]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 638-639, fn. 22 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 208 , 463 P.2d 432 ]; Greenberg v. … III Appellant’s third contention is that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board has exclusive authority to determine who can lawfully own a liquor business. In Gee v.

Board of Supervisors v. McMahon

219 Cal. App. 3d 286 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1990

(Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 286 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d 840 ] [fn. deleted].) … Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 224-225 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 ]; see Younger v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 864, 869-870 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 921 ].)

Coomes v. State Personnel Board

215 Cal. App. 2d 770 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1963

State Personnel Board, 48 Cal.2d 41, 46-47 [ 307 P.2d 4 ]; Genser v. State Personnel Board, 112 Cal.App.2d 77, 80 [ 245 P.2d 1090 ].) … Takata v.

Tarbox v. Board of Supervisors

163 Cal. App. 2d 373 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1958

(Stoumen v. Reilly, 37 Cal.2d 713, 716 [ 234 P.2d 969 ]; Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, 36 Cal.2d 734 [ 227 P.2d 449 ]; Nickola v. Munro, 162 Cal.App.2d 449, 454-455 [ 328 P.2d 271 ].) … (Weiss v. State Board of Equalization, 40 Cal.2d 772, 775 [ 256 P.2d 1 ]; Stoumen v. Reilly, supra; Riley v. Chambers, 181 Cal. 589, 595 [ 185 P. 855 , 8 A.L.R. 418 ].)

Board of Education v. Eisenberg

129 Cal. App. 2d 732 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1954

(Wieman v. Updegraff, supra; Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522 [ 74 S.Ct. 737 , 98 L.Ed. 911 ].) The board’s rule presents none of the difficulties encountered by the courts in the Wieman case. … If a teacher may be dismissed for refusal to accept teaching assignments (Board of Education v.

Ames v. Board of Retirement

147 Cal. App. 3d 906 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 1983

Board of Administration (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 567, 576-577 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 293 ]; Noroian v. Department of Administration (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 651, 654 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 889 ].)” (Neeley v. … (Crumpler v. Board of Administration, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d at p. 577 ; see also Boxx v. Board of Administration (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 79, 83-88 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 538 ].)

Parmar v. Board of Equalization

196 Cal. App. 4th 705 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2011

(See Day v. … (See Fox v.