Case law

Smith v. Laguna Sur Villas Community Ass'n

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 321 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 2000

In Hoiles v. … In Shannon v.

People v. Aiken

108 Cal. App. 2d 343 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1951

Smith, 143 Cal. 597 [ 77 P. 449 ]; Donati v Righetti, 9 Cal.App. 45 [ 97 P. 1128 ] ; People v. Brown, 42 Cal.App. 462, 464 [ 183 P. 829 ].) … In People v.

Twentieth Century-Fox Film v. Workers'comp.

141 Cal. App. 3d 778 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 1983

Rptr. 560 TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX FILM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and KEVIN CONWAY, Respondents. Docket No. 65903. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five. … review by providing the court with the principles relied on by the Board. ( Goytia v.

California Trust Co. v. Culbertson

107 Cal. App. 2d 831 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1951

(Sweetser v. Dobbins, 65 Cal. 529, 530-1 [ 4 P. 540 ]; Schooler v. William *838 son, 192 Cal. 472, 478 [ 221 P. 195 ]; Simon Newman Co. v. Woods, 85 Cal.App. 360, 363 [ 259 P. 460 ].) … (Fish v. Security-First Nat. Bank, supra, 31 Cal.2d 378, 385 ; Kelly v.

Short v. Nevada Joint Union High School District

163 Cal. App. 3d 1087 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 1985

Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle (1977) 429 U.S. 274, 283-287 [ 50 L.Ed.2d 471, 481-484 , 97 S.Ct. 568 ]; Miller v. … Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, supra, 429 U.S. at p. 287 [ 50 L.Ed.2d at p. 484 ]; Martori Brothers Distributors v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., supra, 29 Cal. 3d at pp. 730-731; see also Fadhl v.

County of Shasta v. Moody

90 Cal. App. 519 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1928

No member of the board must be interested, directly or indirectly, in any property purchased for the use of the county, nor in any purchase or sale of property, belonging to the county, nor in any contract made by the board … (Stockton Plumbing & Supply Co. v. Wheeler, supra; Berka v. Woodward, supra; Swanger v. Mayberry, 59 Cal. 91 ; Santa Clara Valley Mill & Lumber Co. v. Hayes, 76 Cal. 387 [ 9 Am. St. Rep. 211 , 18 Pac. 391 ]; Gardner v.

De La Cuesta v. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

121 Cal. App. 3d 328 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1981

But this mistakes the plenary authority of the Board to regulate and control federal savings and loan associations (see, e.g., Conference of Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’ns v. … (Wellenkamp v.

Jensen v. Ritter

185 Cal. App. 2d 473 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1960

In the case of Jones v. … In support they relied upon affidavits by Lon Brown, his wife, and his father.

Hamilton v. Bd. of Supervisors of Santa Barbara Cty.

269 Cal. App. 2d 64 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 1969

Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767, 775 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 146 , 427 P.2d 810 ].) With these concepts in mind, we turn to examine the “findings” on which the board’s order rests. … It is too late to urge, in this court, for the first time, a technical issue which could easily have been resolved at the trial level. 4 Compare Robison v.

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

203 Cal. App. 3d 1132 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 1988

(Ravettino v. … In Beaumont Investors v.

Oddo v. Hedde

101 Cal. App. 2d 375 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1950

Kaeser, 196 Cal. 686, 700 [ 239 P. 324 ]; Binford v. Boyd, 178 Cal. 458, 462 [ 174 P. 56 ]; San Diego & A. R. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 165 Cal. 560, 567 [ 132 P. 1044 ]; People v. … In Norwood v.

Mission Peak Conservancy v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2021

RG19037369) v. … It is simply an item on the board’s checklist. (Ibid.) If the department has set any conditions, the board must accept them. (Wat. Code, § 1228.6, subd. (a)(2); see Sierra Club v.

Burke v. City & County of San Francisco

258 Cal. App. 2d 32 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 18, 1968

(Merckley v. Merckley, 12 Cal.2d 543, 547 [ 86 P.2d 89 ]). … We note, although we do not base our decision upon, the fact that San Francisco in 1967 appointed an assessment appeals board. That board will hereafter serve as the board of equalization (Const., art.

People v. Union Oil Co.

268 Cal. App. 2d 566 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1968

In People v. … (See Meyer v. Board of Trustees (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 420, 431-432 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 717 ].)

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.

In Re Kemper

112 Cal. App. 3d 434 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1980

As noted in Bowland v. … (See also People v. Boyd (1979) 24 Cal.3d 285, 295 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 367 , 594 P.2d 484 ]; Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 394 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 375 , 584 P.2d 512 ]; People v.

Markey v. Danville Warehouse & Lumber, Inc.

119 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 3, 1953

The board has then no power to grant such permit until the ordinance is amended through proper legislative procedure. (Johnston v. Board of Supervisors, 31 Cal.2d 66, 74 [ 187 P.2d 686 ].) … Even an express permit granted by the board contrary to the terms of the *7 ordinance would be of no effect (Johnston v. Board of Supervisors, supra; Magruder v. City of Redwood, 203 Cal. 665, 674-675 [ 265 P.2d 806 ]).

United Systems of Arkansas, Inc. v. Stamison

63 Cal. App. 4th 1001 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 1998

(Geftakys v. State Personnel Board (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 844, 867 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 305 ].) … (g); see Armistead v. State Personnel Board (1978) 22 Cal.3d 198 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 583 P.2d 744 ].)

Patten v. County of San Diego

106 Cal. App. 2d 467 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 7, 1951

Board of Supervisors of San Diego County, 55 Cal.App.2d 883 [ 132 P.2d 276 ]. … (Bank of Italy v. Johnson, 200 Cal. 1, 31 [251 P.784].) *471 Mandamus will not lie to recover the claimed item of $157, under the theory it was allowable costs. (Hunt v.

People v. Root

172 Cal. App. 3d 774 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 17, 1985

Paul Cassotta then exited 22859, got into a brown Datsun and drove into the driveway of 22908. … (Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 230 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 214 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ].)