Case law

Lapp v. Superior Court

205 Cal. App. 2d 56 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1962

(Saxton v. Board of Education of Los Angeles City School District, 206 Cal. 758 [ 276 P. 998 ].) … (Mattos v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.App.2d 641 [ 86 P.2d 1056 ]; Jones v. Superior Court, 88 Cal.App. 253 [ 262 P. 1098 ], See Times Mirror Co. v.

Rodriguez v. Municipal Court

25 Cal. App. 3d 521 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1972

Opinion BROWN (G. A.), J. … State Board of Education (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 733, 735 [ 290 P.2d 890 ]; Baumgardner v. City of Hawthorne (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 512, 517 [ 231 P.2d 864 ]).

Nishkian v. City of Long Beach

103 Cal. App. 2d 749 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1951

(Cantrell v. Board of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.2d 471 [ 197 P.2d 218 ].) … v.

Karides v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

164 Cal. App. 2d 549 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1958

Swegle v. State Board of Equalization, 125 Cal.App.2d 432, 438 [ 270 P.2d 518 ]; Maxwell Café v. Department Alcoholic etc. Control, 142 Cal.App.2d 73, 76 [ 298 P.2d 64 ]; Endo v. … Munro v. Alcoholic etc. Appeals Board, 154 Cal. App.2d 326, 329 [ 316 P.2d 401 ].)

Gaderer v. Grossmont Union High School District

124 Cal. App. 686 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 1932

THOMPSON (V. N.), J., pro tem. … If the plaintiff and *690 appellant did not testify before the school board it must necessarily follow also that the board did not have before it evidence upon this charge at the time of the hearing.

People v. Williams

172 Cal. App. 2d 345 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1959

(People v. … (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ].) Likewise the assertion of inherent improbability in Brown's testimony finds no support in the transcript. (People v.

In re Twinn

190 Cal. App. 4th 447 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 2010

On each occasion the Governor, exercising his authority under article V, section 8, subdivision (b), of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 3041.2, reversed the Board’s decision. … The Governor’s decision to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Board rests on the same factors that guide the Board’s decision (Cal Const., art. V, § 8, subd.

Heinlein v. Anaheim Union High School District

96 Cal. App. 2d 19 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1950

Board of Trustees, 18 Cal.2d 586 [ 116 P.2d 593 ] ; Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.2d 753 [ 112 P.2d 229 ]; Abraham v. Sims, 2 Cal.2d 698 [ 42 P.2d 1029 ] and Fidler v. … (Fidler v. Board of Trustees, supra; Abraham v. Sims, supra; Butterworth v. Boyd, 12 Cal.2d 140, 152 [ 82 P.2d 434 , 126 A.L.R. 838 ] ; Kacsur v. Board of Trustees, supra, p. 591.)

Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens

49 Cal. App. 3d 12 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 1975

In any event we do not see what a hearing could accomplish, the court having directed the Board in the manner it was to proceed. The language in Hohreiter v. … To us the penalty seems most lenient and well within the Department’s and the Board’s discretion. (Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 918 .)

Bedard v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Oct 31, 2024

(Rand v. Board of Psychology (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 565, 575 (Rand).) … In Barber v.

Sharp v. Joint Highway District No. 6

111 Cal. App. 81 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 1931

and that he has had all of the notice that the law requires (Gadd v. … App. 347, 363 [ 231 Pac. 754 ]; Allied Amusement Co. v. Bryan, 201 Cal. 316 [ 256 Pac. 1097 ]). Furthermore, the power to build and pay for-roads is one of the powers which is vested in the local board of supervisors.

Municipal Court v. Bloodgood

137 Cal. App. 3d 29 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1982

have control over budgetary matters, and this legislative function properly belongs to the board of supervisors (Hicks v. … In Board of Supervisors v. Krumm (1976) 62 Cal.

People v. Bates

222 Cal. App. 4th 60 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2013

Instead, this factor is met “when officers unlawfully seize a defendant ‘in the hope that something might turn up.’ ” (United States v. Williams (6th Cir. 2010) 615 F.3d 657, 670, quoting Brown v. … v.

People v. Manriquez

18 Cal. App. 4th 1167 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1993

(People v. Cotton (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1079 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 757 ]; see also People v. … (Brown, at p. 686; People v. Everett (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 604 ].)

Richman v. Bank of Perris

73 Cal. App. 321 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1925

(See, also, Harding v. Vandewater, 40 Cal. 77 ; Thompson v. Williams, 76 Cal. 155 [ 9 Am. St. Rep. 187 , 18 Pac. 153 ]; Smith v. Dorn, 96 Cal. 82 [ 30 Pac. 1024 ]; Beatty v. Rianda, 34 Cal. … App. 180 [ 167 Pac. 185 ]; Raisch v. M. K. T. Oil Co., 7 Cal. App. 667 [ 95 Pac. 662 ]; Curtin v. Salmon River etc., 130 Cal. 348 [ 80 Am. St. Rep. 132 , 62 Pac. 552 ]; Cheney v. Canfield, 158 Cal. 345 [32 L. R. A. (N.

Mullins v. Toothman

231 Cal. App. 2d 756 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1965

He was not subject to the rule stated in Martin v. Henderson, supra, Pootel v. City & County of San Francisco, 125 Cal.App.2d 378 [ 270 P.2d 553 ], and Welshans v. … Mass v. Board of Education, 61 Cal.2d 612, 624 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 394 P.2d 579 ].)

Mulder v. City of Los Angeles

110 Cal. App. 663 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1930

Generally, on the subject of municipal liability for damages in actions of this character, we refer to the opinion of this court in Dick v. City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal. App. 724 [ 168 Pac. 703 ]. … (Civic Center Assn. v. Railroad Com., 175 Cal. 441, 445 [ 166 Pac. 351 ].) "Whether the city could by charter thus exempt itself from liability for negligence, we are not now called upon to determine.

Dinan v. Superior Court

6 Cal. App. 217 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1907

In Croly v. … In Elder v.

Barber Group, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 2023

(See Scott v. … People v.

Imperial County v. Garey

61 Cal. App. 439 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1923

In Felt v. … A. 356 ]; Gardner v. School District, 34 Okl. 716 *445 [ 126 Pac. 1018 ]; Hawhins v. Bare, 63 W. Va. 431 [ 60 S. E. 391 ]; Dahnke v. People, 168 Ill. 102 [39 L. R A. 197, 48 N. E. 137]; Stockett v.