Case law

Adams v. County of San Joaquin

162 Cal. App. 2d 271 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 1958

As to the third cause of action which sought a writ of mandate, the general rule is that a writ of mandate will not issue to review a decision of a board of supervisors in rejecting a claim. (Tilden v. … County of Sacramento, 41 Cal. 68 ; *275 Burbank v. Hamilton, 63 Cal.App. 745 [ 219 P. 1047 ]; County of Tulare v. Woody, 132 Cal.App. 459 [ 22 P.2d 743 ], See also Irvine v. Gibson, 19 Cal.2d 14 [ 118 P.2d 812 ].)

Rodas v. Spiegel

87 Cal. App. 4th 513 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2001

Malicious Prosecution In Hogen v. … Plaintiff attempts to distinguish these cases by arguing that the Contractors’ State License Board is not “empowered and directed to conduct an . . . *521 investigation” of consumer complaints. (Hogen v.

Short v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

52 Cal. App. 3d 104 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1975

In the case of Souza v. … The cases referred to are: Conner v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., supra, 231 Cal.App.2d 263 , Scott v. John E. Branagh & Son (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 435 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 384 ], and Jones v.

Craig v. Earl

194 Cal. App. 2d 652 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 1961

Proc., § 437c; Dudum v. City of San Mateo, 167 Cal.App.2d 593, 595 [ 334 P.2d 968 ]; Luders v. … Proc., § 437c; Family Service Agency of Santa Barbara v.

County of Santa Clara v. Willis

179 Cal. App. 3d 1240 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1986

Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 15 Cal.3d at pp. 217-218.) In the light of the principles just cited we conclude that the Board abused its discretion in reinstating Willis. … (Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of Supervisors (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 497, 518 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 539 ].)

Gately v. Cloverdale Unified School District

67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 377 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 2007

(See Coburn v. Sievert (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1492 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 596 ]; Walker v. Allstate Indemnity Co. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 750, 754 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 132 ].) … Employees Assn. v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 318, 322 .)

Crown Motors v. City of Redding

232 Cal. App. 3d 173 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 1991

(Sunset Amusement Co. v. Board of Police Commissioners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 64, 72 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 768 , 496 P.2d 840 ]; Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) … (Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976) 427 U.S. 50, 71 [ 49 L.Ed.2d 310, 327 , 96 S.Ct. 2440 ], quoted in City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, supra, 466 U.S. *179 at p. 807 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 789 ].)

Handyman Connection of Sacramento, Inc. v. Sands

20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 727 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2004

(Fukuda v. City of Angels, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 824 ; Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners (1968) 68 Cal.2d 67, 71-72 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 435 P.2d 553 ]; Drummey v. … (California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board, supra, 8 Cal.4th 333, 338 .)

Leek v. Washington Unified School District

124 Cal. App. 3d 43 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1981

Bk. v. County of L. A. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 319, 321 [ 217 P.2d 946 ]; Griswold v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 648, 652-653 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 3 ]; Morton v. … In Abood v.

County of Siskiyou v. Superior Court

217 Cal. App. 4th 83 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2013

In Copeland v. Fairview Land etc. … (Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman (1908) 152 Cal. 716, 724; San Juan G. Co. v. San Juan R. etc. Assn. (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 159, 174; Relovich v. Stuart (1931) 211 Cal. 422, 428.)

Wilson v. Lewis

106 Cal. App. 3d 802 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 1980

Rptr. 433 ]; People v. Norwood (1972) 26 Cal. App.3d 148, 152-153 [ 103 Cal. Rptr. 7 ]; Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 20 Cal. App.3d 1, 4-5 [ 97 Cal. Rptr. 431 ].) … Chambers (1919) 181 Cal. 589 [ 185 P. 855 , 8 A.L.R. 418 ], passim; Brown v. Gordon (1966) 240 Cal. App.2d 659, 665-666 [ 49 Cal. Rptr. 901 ]; Buckley v. Savage (1960) 184 Cal. App.2d 18, 26-28 [ 7 Cal.

People v. Dimitrov

33 Cal. App. 4th 18 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1995

The brown bag contained a silver shot glass with a brown residue inside and bum marks on the bottom, a glass cup with white residue inside and bum marks on the bottom, a baggie containing amphetamine, a baggie containing … (People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907, 931 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 ]; People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115, 183 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ]; People v.

Hutchinson v. Reclamation District No. 1619

67 Cal. App. 488 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1924

In the case of Buck v. … (Power v. May, 122 Cal. 147 [ 55 Pac. 796 ].)” The language of the court in Power v.

Wences v. City of Los Angeles

177 Cal. App. 4th 305 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 2009

Chief Bratton agreed with the findings of the Use of Force Review Board and recommended to the Board of Police Commissioners that it do the same. … (Dickey v. Retirement Board (1976) 16 Cal.3d 745, 751 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 289 , 548 P.2d 689 ] (Dickey).)

Langsam v. City of Sausalito

190 Cal. App. 3d 871 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1987

(Wilson v. Hidden Valley Mun. Water Dist., supra, at p. 278.) … (Pitts v. Perluss, supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 834 .)

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.

Rice v. Alcoholic Beverage Etc. Appeals Bd.

89 Cal. App. 3d 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 1979

State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal.3d 214 [ 82 Cal. Rptr. 175 , 461 P.2d 375 ] [school teacher]; Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 68 Cal.2d 67 [medical doctor]; Hallinan v. … Rptr. 192 ]; Board of Trustees v. Judge, supra, 50 Cal.

People v. Lewis

186 Cal. App. 2d 585 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1960

Brown. On the way to the hospital he became unconscious and upon entry thereto he was in a state of deep shock. … The area near the Schulz home was such as to indicate that it was uninhabited, as a second house near the Schulz home was boarded up and had the appearance of not being lived in.

County of Contra Costa v. East Bay Municipal Utility District

229 Cal. App. 2d 556 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 1964

(County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie, 19 Cal.2d 634, 639 [ 122 P.2d 526 ]; Benson v. Superior Court, 214 Cal.App.2d 551, 558 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 760 ].) … The Districts rely on City of Oakland v. Oakland etc.

Ryan v. Riley

65 Cal. App. 181 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1924

In the decision of the Farrell case, the case of Ford v. Board of Harbor Commrs., 81 Cal. 19 [ 22 Pac. 278 ], was taken up and considered. … (Ford v. Harbor Commissioners, 81 Cal. 37 [ 22 Pac. 278 ]; Farrell v. Board of Trustees, 85 Cal. 415 [ 24 Pac. 868 ].)