Case law

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

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: “. . .

Telish v. Cal. State Personnel Board

234 Cal. App. 4th 1479 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 2015

(Coleman v. Department of Personnel Administration (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1102, 1125.) Any factual finding by the Board “which is not specifically attacked is to be accepted as true.” (Black v. … (Lorimore v. State Personnel Board (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 183, 189; accord Wilson v. State Personnel Bd. (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 865, 877; Flowers v. State Personnel Bd. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 753, 759; Larson 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.

Nadler v. California Veterans Board

152 Cal. App. 3d 707 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1984

Nadler’s petition for a writ of administrative mandate directed against the California Veterans Board (Board). … An appeal shall be deemed to have been received by the board on the date of the first meeting of the board subsequent to delivery of the appeal to the secretary of the board.

Board of Retirement v. Lewis

217 Cal. App. 3d 956 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1990

(Wilson v. Board of Retirement (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 195, 212-213 [ 319 P.2d 426 ]; Utz v. Aureguy (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 803, 807 [ 241 P.2d 639 ].) … (See Eureka Teacher’s Assn. v. Board of Education (1988) 202 *966 Cal.App.3d 469, 473; Hinek v. Bowman Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1 (N.D. 1975) 232 N.W.2d 72, 74 .)

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Brown

229 Cal. App. 4th 1416 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 2014

(Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 (Friends of Mammoth).) … (Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v.

Greene v. Franchise Tax Board

27 Cal. App. 3d 38 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1972

(Randall v. Franchise Tax Board of State of California, 453 F.2d 381, 382 .) Like the taxpayer in Randall , Mrs. Greene has never claimed she' did not owe the tax. … Far from being invidious toward the poor, the stipulated facts show Board policy reflects a conscious contrary effort. The judgment is affirmed. Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Coughlin, J., * concurred.

Willson v. State Personnel Board

113 Cal. App. 3d 312 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1980

Plaintiff appealed to defendant State Personnel Board (Board). … In Dixon v.

Peterson v. Board of Supervisors

65 Cal. App. 670 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1924

(People v. Levee District No. 6, 131 Cal. 30 [ 63 Pac. 676 ] ; Reclamation District No. 70 v. Sherman, 11 Cal. App. 399 [ 105 Pac. 277 ].) On pages 406 and 407 of 11 Cal. … Dist. v. Hamilton, 177 Cal. 126 [169 Pac. 1028]; In re Madera Irr. Dist., 92 Cal. 296 [ 27 Am. St. Rep. 106 , 14 L. R. A. 755, 28 Pac. 272, 675]; Miller & Lux v.

Hansen v. Civil Service Board

147 Cal. App. 2d 732 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1957

Code, §§ 11500,11501; Bertch v. … They are very like the findings approved in Swars v.

Santos v. Civil Service Board

193 Cal. App. 3d 1442 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1987

In International Industries, Inc. v. … Catello v. I.T.T.

Ingram v. Board of Education

36 Cal. App. 2d 737 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1940

Petitioner sought a writ of mandate to compel the respondent board to classify him as a teacher with permanent tenure in the public schools of San Francisco. … (Harby v. Board of Education, 2 Cal. App. 418 [ 83 Pac. 1081 ].) The judgment is affirmed. Nourse, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

Barry v. Board of Directors

7 Cal. App. 2d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1935

In Wores v. Imperial Irr. … (Page v. Board of Supervisors, 85 Cal. 50 [ 24 Pac. 607 ]; Wilson v. Blake, 169 Cal. 449 [ 147 Pac. 129 , Ann. Cas. 1916D, 205].)

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.

Edgerton v. State Personnel Board

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 491 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2000

Edgerton and Caltrans thereafter entered into a stipulated settlement before the State Personnel Board (Board). … In Loder v.

Leithliter v. Board of Trustees

12 Cal. App. 3d 1095 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 1970

(Sherman v. Board of Trustees, 9 Cal. App.2d 262, 266 [ 49 P.2d 350 ].) Appellants offered to terminate their employment with the respondent district and their offer was accepted. … The rule is still as it was stated in Mitchell v.

Rutherford v. Board of Trustees

37 Cal. App. 3d 775 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1974

Notice provisions similar to those contained in section 13443 (as they existed in 1965) were considered in Ward v. Fremont Unified Sch. … The Board points to two decisions since Ward , i.e., McGlone v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist., 3 Cal.App.3d 17 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 225 ], and Bekiaris v.

Anderson v. Board of Supervisors

229 Cal. App. 2d 796 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 1964

See Gowanlock v. Turner, 42 Cal.2d 296 [267 P.2d 310]; Walker v. County of Los Angeles, supra-, Carrier v. Robbins, supra, 112 Cal.App.2d 32 . … J., and Brown (Gerald), J., concurred.

Bright v. Board of Supervisors

66 Cal. App. 3d 191 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1977

Opinion BROWN (Gerald), P. J. The county appeals the judgment granting Anthony W. … The trial court erred in directing the board of supervisors to consider whether the parcels were going to be developed together.