Case law

People v. Darrell T.

90 Cal. App. 3d 325 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 1979

Defendant relies upon Ballard v. … (People v. Johnson, 38 Cal.App.3d 1, 7 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 834 ].) As stated in People v.

Cervantes v. Great American Insurance

140 Cal. App. 3d 763 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1983

In Unruh v. … (Serrano v.

Mallett v. Superior Court

6 Cal. App. 4th 1853 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 1992

Although the duty of the board of supervisors to provide adequate quarters for courts is mandatory, what is required to constitute “suitable quarters” is left to the discretion of the board. (Lavine v. … In Board of County Commissioners v.

Am. River Fire Prot. Dist. v. Brennan

58 Cal. App. 4th 20 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 1997

They stress the origin of the benefit in collective bargaining and the purpose of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 3500 et seq.) to permit flexibility in employee-governmental agency relations. … Martin v. Henderson, supra, 40 Cal.2d 583 was followed in the companion case of Jarvis v. Henderson (1953) 40 Cal.2d 600 [ 255 P.2d 426 ] to deny an officer payment for both overtime and holidays. In Longshore v.

Hoshour v. County of Contra Costa

203 Cal. App. 2d 602 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1962

Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 43 Cal.2d 121 [ 272 P.2d 4 ]; Hostetter v. Alderson, 38 Cal.2d 499 [ 241 P.2d 230 ] ; Triangle Ranch, Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 135 Cal.App.2d 428 [ 287 P.2d 537 ]; Floresta, Inc. v. … (Munns v. Stenman, 152 Cal.App.2d 543, 557, 558 [ 314 P.2d 67 ]; 1 Witkin, California Procedure, § 123, p. 387; § 148(b), p. 412.)

People v. Blau

140 Cal. App. 2d 193 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 1956

(People v. Cook, 10 Cal.App.2d 54 [ 51 P.2d 169 ]; People v. Correa, 44 Cal.App. 634 [ 186 P. 1055 ]; People v. Mazzurco, 49 Cal.App. 275 [ 193 P. 164 ].) … (People v. Kromphold, 172 Cal. 512 [ 157 P. 599 ]; People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249 [ 232 P. 457 , 36 A.L.R. 1435 ]; People v. Gidney, 10 Cal.2d 138 [ 73 P.2d 1186 ]; People v.

RAR2 Villa Marina Center CA SPE, Inc. v. County of L.A.

California Court of Appeal · May 23, 2023

(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 401, 409 (Western States); accord, City and County of San Francisco v. … (Fisher v.

O'Neil v. Brode

40 Cal. App. 371 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1919

(Williams v. McDonald, 58 Cal. 527 ; Pennington v. Baehr, 48 Cal. 565 ; Jansen v. McCahill, 22 Cal. 563 , [ 83 Am. Dec. 84 ].) [3] 3. … (Hayes v. Handley et al., 28 Cal. App. Dec. 592. [Decided by supreme court February 18, 1920, 187 Pac. 952 ).] [5] 4.

Crothers v. County of Santa Cruz

151 Cal. App. 2d 219 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1957

(Birch v. County of Orange, 186 Cal. 736 [ 200 P. 647 ] ; Rittersbacher v. Board of Supervisors, 220 Cal. 535 [ 32 P.2d 135 ].) … Co. v.

People v. Mihaly

95 Cal. App. 563 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 1928

On May 1, 1928, a man by the name of Brown rented a private garage No. 7 connected with the Glenwood apartment house in the city of Oakland. … Jur., p. 259, sec. 322; People v. Stoll, 143 Cal. 689, 693 [ 77 Pac. 818 ].) The judgment and order are affirmed. Sturtevant, J., and Koford, P. J., concurred.

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.)

Dennis v. County of Santa Clara

215 Cal. App. 3d 1019 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1989

A board of assessment appeals is “ ‘the sole judge of questions of fact and of the values of property.’ ” (Id. at p. 177.) As the court stated in Bank of America v. … Gilmore Co. v.

Chrisman v. City of Los Angeles

65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 701 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2007

And in Perez v. … Finally, in Mahru v.

Hayman v. City of Los Angeles

17 Cal. App. 2d 674 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1936

App. 418 [ 83 Pac. 1081 ] ; Donovan v. Board of Police Commrs., 32 Cal. App. 392 [ 163 Pac. 69 ]; Cahill v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. 42 [ 78 Pac. 467 ]; Kramer v. Board of Police Commrs., 39 Cal. … In this connection see Donovan v. Board of Police Gommrs., supra, at page 400.

Siskiyou County Farm Bureau v. Department of Fish & Wildlife

237 Cal. App. 4th 411 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 2015

(Board of Trustees v. Judge (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 920, 927, fn. 4.) … (Medical Board v. Superior Court (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 163, 179; see J.A. Jones Construction Co. v.

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.

Anderson Union High School District v. Shasta Secondary Home School

4 Cal. App. 5th 262 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 2016

(County of Sonoma v. … (Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. 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.

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.

Exchange Bank v. County of Sonoma

59 Cal. App. 3d 608 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1976

’s favor, thereby making further litigation unnecessary (Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. … “Prior application to the local board of equalization has not been required, however, in certain cases where the facts were undisputed and the property assessed was tax-exempt . . . .” (Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v.