Case law

Golden Drugs Co., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly

179 Cal. App. 4th 1455 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 2009

(Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board *1466 (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 233 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ] (,Shapell); Lewin v. St. Joseph Hospital of Orange (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 368, 387 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 892 ].) … (American Board of Cosmetic Surgery v. Medical Board of California (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 534, 547-548 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 574 ] (American Board of Cosmetic Surgery); Shapell, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at pp. 231-232.)

California Teachers Assn. v. Ingwerson

46 Cal. App. 4th 860 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1996

(Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 442 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 574 , 777 P.2d 610 ]; accord Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. … (Lee v. Board of Civil Service Comrs. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 103, 108 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 47 ]; Cosgrove v. County of Sacramento (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 45, 50-51 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 919 ].)

Correll v. Clark Equipment Co.

76 Cal. App. 3d 548 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 1978

Accordingly, the settlement in this instance may not be used by plaintiffs as a springboard to defeat Employers’ lien (see Van Nuis v. Los Angeles Soap Co. (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 222, 232 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 398 ]; Brown v. … In all other cases these amounts shall be set by the appeals board.

Rinaldo v. Superior Court

15 Cal. App. 2d 585 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1936

In Sharp v. … In Ashton v.

Dole Food Co. v. Superior Court

242 Cal. App. 4th 894 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2015

(Erreca’s v. … Developer Defendants contend that two decisions, Knox v. County of Los Angeles (Knox) (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 825, and Alcal Roofing & Insulation v.

Acton v. Henderson

150 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1957

(Hollman v. Warren, 32 Cal.2d 351 [ 196 P.2d 562 ].) Directly in point is Tevis v. … Co. v. New York, 134 U.S. 594 [ 10 S.Ct. 593 , 33 L.Ed. 1025 ].) The proper rule was stated in Martin v.

Hand v. El Dorado Irrigation District

97 Cal. App. 740 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1929

Co. v. Burson, 147 Cal. 401 [ 81 Pac. 1107 ].) … Jur. 360, sec. 573; Harel son v. South San Joaquin Irr. Dist., 20 Cal. App. 324, 334 [ 128 Pac. 1010 ]; Inglin v. Hoppin, 156 Cal. 483 [ 105 Pac. 582 ].) In J. & W. C. Shull, Inc., v. Merced Irr.

Victors v. Kelsey

31 Cal. App. 796 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 4, 1916

“That in the determination of the said cause, *People of the State of California v. Frank S. … (Colusa County v. De Jarnatt, 55 Cal. 373, 375 ; McFarland v. McCowen, 98 Cal. 330 , [ 33 Pac. 113 ] ; McBride v. Newlin, 129 Cal. 36 , [ 61 Pac. 577 ]; County of Santa Cruz v.

People v. Experian Data Corp.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2024

Brown for Plaintiff and Appellant. Jones Day, Nathaniel P. Garrett, Richard J. Grabowski, John A. Vogt and Ryan D. Ball, for Defendant and Respondent. … (See, e.g., Jolly v.

Dominquez v. County of Butte

241 Cal. App. 2d 164 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1966

(Lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal (Griffin v. Griffin (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 92, 101 [ 264 P.2d 167 ]).) … (See Manquero v. Turlock etc. School Dist. (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 131 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 470 ].)

Torres v. S.F. Assessment Appeals Bd. No. 1

California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2023

In addition, the State Board “issues a handbook to ‘serve as a primary reference and basic guide for assessors.’ ” (Church v. … CPF-19-516833) v.

Peet v. People's Trust & Savings Bank

90 Cal. App. 436 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1928

(Peet v. People's Trust and Savings Bank, 56 Cal. App. 46 [ 204 Pac. 413 ].) … (Peet v. People's Trust and Savings Bank, 56 Cal. App. 46 [ 204 Pac. 413 ].)

Los Angeles Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Corp. v. County of Los Angeles

22 Cal. App. 2d 418 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1937

In Pacific Coast Co. v. Wells, supra, the assessor assessed $100,000 in solvent credits that did not exist. In Associated Oil Co. v. … The case is not at all similar to Brenner v.

Van De Veer v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

155 Cal. App. 2d 817 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1957

(People v. Slobodion, 30 Cal.2d 362 [ 181 P.2d 868 ]; McDonald v. Lee, 132 Cal. 252 [ 64 P. 250 ]; Estes v. Chimes, 40 Cal.App.2d 41 [ 104 P.2d 74 ].) … (Poynor v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 81 F.2d 521 ; see also, Louisiana Discount Corp. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 193 F.2d 495 ; Di Prospero v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 176 F.2d 76 .)

People v. Kuder

93 Cal. App. 42 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1928

On the contrary, the presumption is that the board will not act unreasonably or unfairly. ’ ’ In Agnew v. … Board of Liquidation v. Briede, 117 La. 183 [ 41 South. 487 ].) It is a duty conferred by words or by implication upon an officer to look into facts and to act upon them in the exercise of discre *55 tion. (Bair v.

Goff v. Shaw

223 Cal. App. 2d 174 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1963

(Vargas v. Maderos, 191 Cal. 1, 3 [ 214 P. 849 ]; Zunino v. Gabriel, 182 Cal.App.2d 613, 618 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 514 , 80 A.L.R.2d 1088 ].) … J., and Brown (R.M.), J., concurred.

Abrams v. Daugherty

60 Cal. App. 297 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 28, 1922

“The judicial function is to decide on the property or rights of a citizen (Robinson v. Board of Supervisors, 16 Cal. 210 ; Imperial W. Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 162 Cal. 18 [ 120 Pac. 780 ]; 11 Cor. … (Dyment v. Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Cal, *304 App. 260 [ 207 Pac. 409, 411 ].) The rule is particularly applicable here for two reasons: (1) The proceeding is “highly penal in its nature” (Schomig v.

Gerawan Farming v. Agricultural Labor Rel. Bd.

California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2015

]; DaFonte v. … (Fisher v.

Merrill Elementary School District v. Rapose

125 Cal. App. 2d 819 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 1954

(Pass School Dist. v. Hollywood City School Dist., 156 Cal. 416, 418, 420 [ 105 P. 122 , 20 Ann.Cas. 87, 26 L.R.A.N.S. 485 ].) … The only contention of Merrill is that an agreement between its board of trustees and the board of trustees of Corning is necessary to annexation. Admittedly, no such agreement was executed.

Benny v. City of Alameda

105 Cal. App. 3d 1006 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1980

(Bright v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 191, 194 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 758 ].) … (Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of Supervisors, supra, at p. 505.) For example, in Santa Clara County Contractors etc. Assn. v.