Case law

Williams v. Sacramento River Cats Baseball Club, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 2019

In June 2015, while plaintiff helped Brown in the visitor clubhouse as Brown’s guest, plaintiff witnessed a visiting team’s trainer and coach berate, intimidate, assault, and swear at Brown, who is African American, “as if … (Miklosy v.

Williamson v. Payne

25 Cal. App. 2d 497 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1938

As an example of some of the rules that have been upheld we may cite the following: In Rees v. … The same ruling was had in'the case of Pardee v. Schuykill County et al., 276 Pa. 246 [ 120 Atl. 139 ]. We have heretofore referred to section 4041.1, supra, as to the powers of the board of supervisors to make rules.

Morales v. Ingels

30 Cal. App. 2d 182 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1938

(Meyer v. San Francisco, 150 Cal. 131 [ 88 Pac. 722 , 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 110] ; San Diego Cotton Club v. State Board of Equalization, 139 Cal. … (Kelley v. Kingsbury, 210 Cal. 37 [ 290 Pac. 885 ]; Doble Steam Motor Gorp. v. Daugherty, 195 Cal. 158 [ 232 Pac. 140 ].) The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

Carolina Lanes, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

253 Cal. App. 2d 831 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1967

(See also Robins v. County of Los Angeles, 248 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 853 ]; Sica v. Board of Police Comrs., 200 Cal.App.2d 137,141 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 277 ].) … (See Robins v. County of Los Angeles, supra, at pp. 8-11; Daniel v. Board of Police Comrs., supra, pp. 570-571.) Appellants also contend that the rules deprive plaintiffs of equal protection of the law.

In Re Dayan

231 Cal. App. 3d 184 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1991

In Board of Pardons v. Allen, supra, 482 U.S. 369 , the United States Supreme Court reiterated its holding in Greenholtz v. … (Board of Pardons v. Allen, supra, 482 U.S. at p. 373 [ 96 L.Ed.2d at p. 309 ].)

Sacramento Typographical U. No. 46 v. St. of Calif

18 Cal. App. 3d 634 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 1971

(Meyer v. Board of Trustees (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 420, 431 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 717 ].) Defendant’s contention fails. … Board of Admin., etc. (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 514, 521-522 [ 93 P.2d 1046 , 94 P.2d 610 ]; see also, Cal. Drive-In Restaurant Assn. 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.

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.

Hassaine v. Club Demonstration Services

California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2022

(See Mackey v. Board of Trustees of Cal. … (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 213 (Brown).) Because the trial court granted summary judgment on the basis of no duty, it did not reach CDS’s alternative arguments regarding breach and causation.

Schmitt v. City of Rialto

164 Cal. App. 3d 494 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1985

(Ske lly v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 217 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 539 P.2d 774 ]; Magit v. Board of Medical Examiners (1961) 57 Cal.2d 74, 87 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 488 , 366 P.2d 816 ].) … (See Sunset Amusement Co. v. Board of Police Commissioners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 64, 76 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 768 , 496 P.2d 840 ]; Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 149 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 481 P.2d 242 ]; Merrill v.

City of Chula Vista v. County of San Diego

23 Cal. App. 4th 1713 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1994

(Long Beach Equities, Inc. v. County of Ventura (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1024 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 877 ]; Eldridge v. … (Service Employees International Union v.

People v. Smith

132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 230 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 2003

(See U.S. v. Trala, supra, 162 F.Supp.2d at p. 343 ; People v. Brown (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 623, 634 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 750 ] [substructures].) … (People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 530 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 726 P.2d 516 ]; People v. Axell, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 854 ; People v. Smith (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 19, 25 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 678 ]; People v.

Camarena v. State Personnel Bd.

54 Cal. App. 4th 698 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1997

(Pereyda v. State Personnel Board (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 47, 50 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 746 ].) We do not substitute our own judgment if the board’s decision “ ‘ “is one which could have been made by reasonable people. . . .” … (See, e.g., Stanton v.

Ex Parte Yung

7 Cal. App. 440 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 1908

Ch. v. Balt, 6 Gill (Md.), 391, [ 48 Am. Dec. 542] ; 21 Am. & Eng. … E. 563 ], citing Cronin v. People, 82 N. Y. 323 , 37 Am.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund v. Workers' Comp. etc.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2024

(Arriaga v. … (See Angell v.

People v. McClain

209 Cal. App. 2d 224 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1962

Brown : I have here a certified copy of a prison commitment in the County of Los Angeles from the Sheriff’s Department and will you stipulate to identity? “Mr. Branch : Yes. “Mr. Brown: You stipulate to identity? “Mr. … Brown: May this be marked People’s 2 for identification ? “The Court: All right.”

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Arcata National Corp.

59 Cal. App. 3d 959 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1976

(Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, pp. 262-263; italics added.) … Board of Permit Appeals (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 158, 171 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 490 ]; People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841-842 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 67 ]; Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.

English v. City of Long Beach

77 Cal. App. 2d 894 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1947

and regulations of the civil service board. … The case of Lotts v.

In Re Powell

188 Cal. App. 4th 1530 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 2010

The Board considered the motive to be trivial. … Code, §§ 3052-3053; Terhune v. Superior Court (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 864, 874 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 ].)

In re Montgomery

208 Cal. App. 4th 149 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 2012

The trial court held the September 2009 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) issuing a three-year denial of Montgomery’s parole was not supported by some evidence, and accordingly remanded to the Board for … (Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 202 ].)