Case law

People v. Murillo

California Court of Appeal · Sep 1, 2020

(See People v. … In People v.

Friars Village Homeowners v. Hansing

California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 2013

(Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj (2004) 33 Cal.4th 73, 85; see Lamden v. … 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.

Visueta v. General Motors Corp.

234 Cal. App. 3d 1609 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1991

Brown for Cross-defendant and Respondent. OPINION YEGAN, J. Richard Visueta and Michael Bunt appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of General Motors Corporation (GMC). … Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 20-22 [ 112 Cal. Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ]; Hoover Community Hotel Development Corp. v. Thomson (1985) 167 Cal. App.3d 1130, 1141-1142 [ 213 Cal.

Adams v. City & County of San Francisco

94 Cal. App. 2d 586 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 1949

Marchant v. … The holding in Adams v.

Harris v. Curtis Publishing Co.

49 Cal. App. 2d 340 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1942

In Bettner v. … In Siemon v.

Kleefeld v. Superior Court

25 Cal. App. 4th 1680 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1994

(Gutierrez v. Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 896 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 705 P.2d 886 ].) Plaintiff calls our attention to the case of Steingart v. White (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 406 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 678 ]. … (Steingart v. White, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d at pp. 414-415.)

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.

Cory v. City of Huntington Beach

43 Cal. App. 3d 131 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1974

, or has been deem.ed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division.” 3 Government Code section 912.4 provides in pertinent part: “(a) The board shall act on a claim in … “(c) If the board fails or refuses to act on a claim within the time prescribed by this section, the claim shall be deemed to have been rejected by the board on the last day of the period within which the board was required

Rowe v. Hansen

41 Cal. App. 3d 512 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 1974

As the court pointed out in Thomas v. California Emp. Stabilization Com., 39 Cal.2d 501, 504 [ 247 P.2d 561 ], the board is a statutory agency without power to make final determinations of fact. … (Jacobs v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., supra, 25 Cal.App.3d at p. 1037.) Petitioner, relying on Silva v.

People v. Ferguson

214 Cal. App. 2d 772 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 1963

Brown, 205 Cal. … (Tompkins v. Superior Court, supra, 59 Cal.2d 65, 68 ; People v. Brown, supra, 205 Cal.App.2d 188, 192 .)

Mission Housing Development Co. v. City & County of San Francisco

59 Cal. App. 4th 55 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 1997

.) [¶] On the other hand, courts are authorized to conduct an independent reassessment ‘when a board of equalization purports to decide a question of law.’ (Board of Supervisors v. … (a); State Bd. of Equalization v. Board of Supervisors (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 813, 822-823 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 739 ].)

Continental Insurance v. Columbus Line, Inc.

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 199 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 2003

Before being loaded on board defendant’s ship, the mast was damaged. The damage was so severe that the mast could not be loaded on defendant’s ship and carried to New Zealand. … .); Wuerttembergische v. M/V Stuttgart Express (5th Cir. 1983) 711 F.2d 621, 622 ; Brown & Root, Inc. v. M/V Peisander (5th Cir. 1981) 648 F.2d 415, 420 .)

Ramseier v. Oakley Sanitary District

197 Cal. App. 2d 722 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1961

(Lemoge Electric v. County of San Mateo, 46 Cal.2d 659 [ 297 P.2d 638 ] ; Bailard v. Warden, 36 Cal. 2d 703 [ 227 P.2d 10 ].) … (Ward v. Waterman, 85 Cal. 488, 504 [ 24 P. 930 ].)

In Re Dannenberg

173 Cal. App. 4th 237 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2009

that of the Board.” … Consequently, there is not some evidence to support the Governor’s decision to reject the Board’s grant of parole, and the appropriate remedy is to vacate the Governor’s decision and reinstate the Board’s decision. V.

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.

Underwood Land & Development Co. v. Bradshaw

152 Cal. App. 2d 655 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 1957

The court, having set aside the board’s orders, remanded the proceedings for further consideration. The board appealed and this court, upon request, granted supersedeas. … The department’s findings, received and considered by the respondent board, furnished evidence that there was a need for hospital beds in the hospital area to be served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1963, subd. 15; Reynolds v.

Otto v. Reardon

21 Cal. App. 2d 260 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1937

Rule two, section 3, which was adopted by the board provides in part in that regard: “Whenever the duties of a position . . . are changed so that they differ substantially . . . the board shall reclassify such position and … Unless there is a clear abuse of discretion in that regard we may not interfere with the province of the board by means of mandamus or otherwise. (Mann v. Tracy, 185 Cal. 272 [ 196 Pac. 484 ].)

People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Garden Grove Farms

231 Cal. App. 2d 666 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1965

*668 BROWN (R. M.), J. … Board of Supervisors, 101 Cal. 15 , at page 21 [ 35 P. 353 , 40 Am.St.Rep. 17 ], quoting from People v. Smith, 21 N.Y. 505 , as follows; “ ‘The power resides in the legislature.

Weissman v. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Ass'n

211 Cal. App. 3d 40 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1989

In arguing against this conclusion, the Board relies solely on Dodosh v. County of Orange (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 936 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 804 ]. … (Dodosh v. County of Orange, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 939 .) The Board continues to rely on this definition to defend the propriety of its refusal to process plaintiff’s application.