Case law

Harrison v. Board of Supervisors

44 Cal. App. 3d 852 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1975

Opinion BROWN (H. C), P. J. … Ramish (1904) 142 Cal. 686, 696 [ 76 P. 661 ]) and that the board is entitled to notice of the objections and an opportunity to act upon them. (Roberts v.

Charles Brown & Sons v. White Lunch Co.

92 Cal. App. 457 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 1928

In Jules Levy & Bro. v. A. Mautz & Co., 16 Cal. … As is said in Baume v. Morse, 13 Cal.

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.

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.

Jaques v. Board of Supervisors

24 Cal. App. 381 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 1914

In Williams v. … (Quint v. Hoffman, 103 Cal. *385 506, [ 37 Pac. 514 ] ; Reclamation District v. Turner, 104 Cal. 335 , [ 37 Pac. 1038 ]).” In Metcalfe v. Merritt, 14 Cal.

Sayre v. Board of Trustees

9 Cal. App. 3d 488 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1970

(Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.2d 753 [ 112 P.2d 229 ]; Lawe v. El Monte School Dist., 267 Cal.App.2d 20 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 554 ]; Eastham v. … As the court said in Aebli v. Board of Education, 62 Cal.App.2d 706, 757 [ 145 P.2d 601 ]: “The law vests the board with the power to determine policy.

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.

State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance v. Brown

40 Cal. App. 3d 385 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1974

Co. v. … Exchange v.

Snow v. Board of Administration

87 Cal. App. 3d 484 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1978

(Pinion v. State Personnel Board (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 314, 315-320 [ 84 P.2d 185 ]; Otto v. Reardon (1937) 21 Cal.App.2d 260, 264 [ 69 P.2d 185 ]; see also San Francisco City etc. Employees Internat. Union v. … City of Sacramento (1947) 80 Cal.App.2d 284, 289 [ 181 P.2d 893 ], Campbell v. Board of Civil Service Comrs. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 399, 404 [ 173 P.2d 58 ], and Heard v.

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.

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.

Anderson v. State Personnel Board

103 Cal. App. 3d 242 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 1980

Code, § 19173; 1 Wiles v. State Personnel Board (1942) 19 Cal.2d 344, 352 [ 121 P.2d 673 ].) … (Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 641 [ 234 P.2d 981 ].) The statutory language, “‘upon a date to be fixed,’” was interpreted in Allison v.

Brightman v. Board of Education

4 Cal. App. 2d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 1935

(McKee v. Edgar, 137 Cal. App. 462 [ 30 Pac. (2d) 999, 1001 ]; Gould v. Santa Ana High School District, 131 Cal. App. 345 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 623 ].) … (McKee v. Edgar, supra; see, also, Montgomery v. Board of Education, 137 Cal. App. 668 [ 31 Pac. (2d) 243 ].)

Bridge v. Board of Education

2 Cal. App. 2d 398 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1934

In support of her contention respondent cites Ahern v. Livermore Union High School District, 208 Cal. 770 [ 284 Pac. 1105 ], Meade v. Oakland High School District, 212 Cal. 419 [ 298 Pac. 987 ], and Damgaard v. … (Huff v. Compton City Grammar School District, supra; Dawson v. Tulare Union High School, supra.)

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.

Raney v. Board of Trustees

239 Cal. App. 2d 256 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1966

In the case of Griggs v. … (See Horner v. Board of Trustees, 61 Cal.2d 79, 82 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 389 P.2d 713 ].)

Hooks v. State Personnel Board

111 Cal. App. 3d 572 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1980

(Nightingale v. State Personnel Board (1972) 7 Cal.3d 507 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 758 , 498 P.2d 1006 ].) We conclude and hold that subdivision (t) applied to Hooks. … There was no abuse of discretion (see Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 15 Cal.3d 194, 217 ; Nightingale v. State Personnel Board, supra, 7 Cal.3d 507, 515; Gillies v.

Geftakys v. State Personnel Board

138 Cal. App. 3d 844 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1982

Younger v. … (United States v. State of California (1974) 504 F.2d 750 , cert. den. U.S. v.

Chirmside v. Board of Administration

143 Cal. App. 3d 205 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1983

We do not consider or accept Lionberger as authority for the assertion that the terminable interest doctrine has survived Brown. Henn v. … Board of Education (1964) 61 Cal.2d 612, 627 , fh. 9 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 394 P.2d 579 ]; see also Patillo v. Norris (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 209, 217 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 210 ].)