Case law

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.

Clark v. Conley School District of Kern County

86 Cal. App. 527 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 1927

to show any irregularity in the proceedings of the board. … On this phase of the case the judgment is within the rule announced in McCormick Lumber Co. v. Highland School District, 26 Cal. App. 641, 643 [ 147 Pac. 1183 ], and Warren Bros. Co. v. Boyle, 42 Cal.

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.

People v. Becker

108 Cal. App. 2d 764 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1952

Moreover, we think, as did the court in Inchbald v. … The defendant resigned from the Board of Education so as not to embarrass its members while a conviction hung over his head.' In Commonwealth 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.

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.

Machado v. Machado

201 Cal. App. 2d 154 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1962

(See Pope v. Pope, 107 Cal.App.2d 537, 540 [ 237 P.2d 312 ].) There is adequate authority for this view. (See Brown v. Brown, 162 Cal.App.2d 314 [ 328 P.2d 4 ]; and Washington v. … If the trial court is satisfied from the record that the appeal is not undertaken in good faith, it has a right to deny such relief, as is indicated in Brown v. Brown, supra, 162 Cal.App.2d 314, 319 .

California Teachers Ass'n v. Pasadena Unified School District

79 Cal. App. 3d 556 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1978

Board of Trustees, 64 Cal.App.3d 59, 62-63 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 220 ]; American Federation of Teachers v. Board of Education, 77 Cal.App.3d 100, 106-108 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 264 ]; and Santa Barbara Federation of Teachers v. … (Rutherford v. Board of Trustees, 64 Cal.App.3d 167, 180 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 290 ].)

Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles

163 Cal. App. 3d 1141 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 1985

(Taylor v. … As stated in Brennan v. Board of Supervisors (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 193, 197 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 294 ]: “We are further instructed by Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v.

The People v. Denman

California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2013

(People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 318, 320 (Brown). … (Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 322, fn. 11.) In People v.

Skidmore v. Dambacher

6 Cal. App. 2d 83 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1935

We find nothing in the cases of Jones v. Sturzenberg, 59 Cal. App. 350 [ 210 Pac. 835 ], and Laist v. … Upon the authority of Skidmore v.

People v. Murillo

California Court of Appeal · Sep 1, 2020

(See People v. … In People v.

County of Kern v. Sparks

56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 2007

(County of Riverside v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 278, 285 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 713 , 66 P.3d *17 718].) Thus, here, it was up to the Board, not Sparks, to set the salary for a commander. … (Adkins v. State of California (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1802, 1818 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 59 ], disapproved on another point in City of Moorpark v.

Sacramento Mun. Utility Dist. v. County of Solano

54 Cal. App. 4th 1163 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1997

(Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 724 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ].) Such intent is normally apparent from the language of the enactment alone. (Lungren v. … (See Babb v.

Arco Alaska, Inc. v. Superior Court

168 Cal. App. 3d 139 · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 1985

(Taylor v. Crane (1979) 24 Cal.3d 442 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 695 , *147 595 P.2d 129 ]; Morris v. Zuckerman (1968) 69 Cal.2d 686, 690 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 880 , 446 P.2d 1000 ].) … (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C.S.T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 233 [ 174 P.2d 441 ]; Crofoot v. Blair Holdings Corp. (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 156, 184 [ 260 P.2d 156 ]; Lauria v.

Randolph v. County of Stanislaus

44 Cal. App. 322 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1919

The case of People v. Board of Supervisors of Shasta County, reported in 75 Cal. 179 , [ 16 Pac. 776 ], is very much in point. … (Citing Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 301; Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 589 ; Manson v. Koppikus, 11 Cal. 89 ; Miller v. Grunsky, 141 Cal. 447 , [ 66 Pac. 858 , 75 Pac. 48 ].)

Service Employees International Union v. County of Sonoma

227 Cal. App. 4th 1168 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 2014

Union v. Board of Trustees (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1661, 1665.) B. … (San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571, 577, followed in Miller v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 883, 895.)