Case law

City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Commission

217 Cal. App. 4th 170 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 2013

(See Doe v. Brown (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 408, 417 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 ] [“We apply the de novo standard of review to this claim, since the claim raises an issue of statutory interpretation.”].) a. … (See Doe v. Brown, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 417.) i.

People Ex Rel. Smith v. Gunn

30 Cal. App. 114 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 1916

In People v. … Wells, 2 Cal. 198 ; Christy v. Board of Supervisors, 39 Cal. 3 .) Respondent claims that the case of People v.

Tri-Fanucchi Farms v. Agricultural Labor Rel. Bd.

California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2015

Since the Board is the administrative agency entrusted with enforcement of the ALRA, its interpretation of the ALRA is given deference by the courts and will be followed if not clearly erroneous. (Montebello Rose Co. v. … Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 26 Cal.3d 1, 29 (J.R. Norton Co.); Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California E.

Prairie Oil Co. v. Carleton

91 Cal. App. 2d 555 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1949

(Kern Sunset Oil Co. v. … (Extension Oil Co. v. Richfield Oil Corp., 52 Cal.App.2d 105,108 [ 125 P.2d 895 ].)

People v. Smith

166 Cal. App. 2d 616 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1958

He testified further that about 12:30 a.m. on November 30 he saw appellant driving a black 1947 Cadillac sedan car and that the left rear windwing of the car was missing; at that time one Williams and one Brown were with … In People v.

People v. Municipal Court

27 Cal. App. 3d 193 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 15, 1972

(See Collins v. City & Co. of S. F., 112 Cal.App.2d 719 [ 247 P.2d 362 ]; Estate of Browne, 2 Cal.App.3d 406 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 705 ].) … (See Board of Supervisors v. Simpson, 36 Cal.2d 671 [ 227 P.2d 14 ]; People v. Vatelli, 15 Cal.App.3d 54, 58, 59 [92 Cal.Rptr, 763], and cases cited.)

L. B. Foster Co. v. County of Los Angeles

265 Cal. App. 2d 24 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 1968

(Carfer v. Caldwell (1906) 200 U.S. 293, 297 [ 50 L.Ed. 488, 489 , 26 S.Ct. 264 ]; People v. Provines (1868) 34 Cal. 520, 532 .) … Bank v. County of Los Angeles (1902) 137 Cal. 467 [ 70 P. 308 ].)

In Re Marriage of Torres

62 Cal. App. 4th 1367 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1998

deferred to Tennessee as ‘the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child.’ ” (Brown v. … (Brown v. Brown, supra, 847 S.W.2d at p. 500 .) As we will *1375 discuss, in this regard, the Tennessee statute is also “identical to the jurisdiction provision in the PKPA.”

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 ].)

Lumpkin v. Jordan

49 Cal. App. 4th 1223 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 1996

(See Espada v. Woodroffe (D.P.R. 1995) 896 F.Supp. 69, 71 ; Brown v. Polk County, Iowa (S.D. … (Boccardo v.

Mandel v. Municipal Court

276 Cal. App. 2d 649 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 8, 1969

Board of Education, supra, 55 Cal.2d 167, 178-180 ; Katzev v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 52 Cal.2d 360, 365-367 .) … (Termimello v. Chicago [1948] 337 U.S. 1 , 4 . . .) ” (Los Angeles Teachers Union v. Los Angeles City Board of Education, supra, 71 Cal.2d 551, 558 . See also, Cox v.

Miller v. City of Los Angeles

169 Cal. App. 4th 1373 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 2008

In Johnson v. … Later, in Schifando v.

Fraser-Yamor Agency, Inc. v. County of Del Norte

68 Cal. App. 3d 201 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1977

For Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae, 262 Cal.App.2d 222, 236 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 251 ]; People ex rel. Mosk v. Barenfeld, 203 Cal.App.2d 166, 172 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 501 ]; Terry v. … (Stigall v.

Kimbrough v. Police & Fire Retirement System

161 Cal. App. 3d 1143 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1984

(See generally, Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners (1948) 32 Cal.2d 301, 308 [ 196 P.2d 20 ]; Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 481 P.2d 242 ]; Harmon v. … (Bixby v.

Choi v. Sagemark Consulting

California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2017

(See Brown v. Bleiberg (1982) 32 Cal.3d 426, 438 [noting “the rationale of the tolling doctrine is estoppel”].) … (Hindin v.

Monroe v. Cal. Public Employees' Retirement System

California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 2026

State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194. 3 an issue of law, “we apply our independent judgment regarding the action of the administrative agency” (Stermer v. … Board of Dental Examiners (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 128, 132). 2.

Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified Sch. Dist. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2018

(See Mangini v. R.J. … v.

Park Medical Pharmacy v. San Diego Orthopedic Associates Medical Group, Inc.

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 858 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2002

(Day v. City of Fontana (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268, 272 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 , 19 P.3d *251 1196]; Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 977 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 260 , 987 P.2d 727 ].) … (Day, at p. 272; People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 230 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 570 , 6 P.3d 228 ].) If the language of a statute is clear, we must follow its plain meaning. (Torres v.

Union Bank & Trust Co. v. County of Los Angeles

2 Cal. App. 2d 600 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 1934

Monterey County, 76 Cal. 113 [ 18 Pac. 135 ] ; Webster v. Board of Education, 140 Cal. 331 [ 73 Pac. 1070 ] ; More v. Board of Supervisors, 31 Cal. App. 388 [ 160 Pac. 702 ] ; Hammond Lumber Co. v. Moore, 104 Cal. … (Dewey v. Board of Supervisors of Niagara County, 62 N. Y. 294 ; Gray v. Board of Supervisors of Tompkins County, 93 N. Y. 603 ; Estep v. Koekuk County, 18 Iowa, 199 ; Randles v. Waukesha County, 96 Wis. 629 [ 71 N.

Health Maintenance Network v. Blue Cross of Southern California

202 Cal. App. 3d 1043 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 1988

the board. … (Day v. Rosenthal (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1148-1149 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 89 ].) 23 Cases relied upon by appellant are not on point. For example, in Pennix v.