Case law

Duax v. Kern Community College District

196 Cal. App. 3d 555 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1987

In Martin v. … Interestingly, while the board in Davis v.

Cade v. Mid-City Hospital Corp.

45 Cal. App. 3d 589 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1975

Wks. v. … Fiske. 6 In Bardessono v.

Hazon-Iny Development, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica

128 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1982

Board of Supervisors (1978) 22 Cal.3d 644 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 242 , 586 P.2d 556 ], and El Patio v. … (Brougher v. Board of Public Works (1928) 205 Cal. 426, 435 [ 271 P. 487 ]; see Russian Hill Improvement Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 34, 39 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 672 , 423 P.2d 824 ]; cf. Miller v.

Lorber v. Storrow

22 Cal. App. 2d 25 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1937

The cited case has been followed in the eases of Whitten v. California State Board of Optometry, 8 Cal. (2d) 444 [ 65 Pac. (2d) 1296 ] ; Hawley v. Clark, 17 Cal. App. (2d) 546 [ 62 Pac. (2d) 613 ] ; Dysart v. … Co. v. Scarborough, 216 Cal. 698, 706 [ 16 Pac. (2d) 268 ], and Haddad v.

Stanley R. v. Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services

113 Cal. App. 3d 423 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1980

Brown (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 317 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 854 ].) Appellant argues that the complaint doctrine should not apply in civil cases. We do not agree. In People v. … Brown, a criminal case, supra, the court cited language from People v.

County of Santa Clara v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2022

Quantum meruit is an equitable doctrine under which the “ ‘law implies a promise to pay for services performed under circumstances disclosing that they were not gratuitously rendered.’ ” (Huskinson & Brown v. … III, § 300 [“The county may exercise its powers only through the Board of Supervisors or officers acting under its authority or of law or of this 2 Charter.”] ; see Dones v.

Rivera v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

217 Cal. App. 3d 294 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1990

(D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 22 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 786 , 520 P.2d 10 ], italics in original.) … (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 11 Cal.3d at 21, italics in original.)

Renken v. Compton City School District

207 Cal. App. 2d 106 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1962

Board of Education, 27 Cal.2d 322, 325 [ 164 P.2d 1 ]; Whitcomb Hotel, Inc. v. California Emp. Com., 24 Cal.2d 753, 757 [ 151 P.2d 233 , 155 A.L.R. 405 ]; County of Los Angeles v. … (See Del Mar Canning Co. v. Payne, 29 Cal.2d 380, 382-383 [ 175 P.2d 231 ]; Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.2d 753, 758 [ 112 P.2d 229 ].)

Anderson v. San Mateo Community College District

87 Cal. App. 3d 441 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1978

In Brock v. … (Drummey v. State Board of Funeral Directors, 13 Cal.2d 75, 82 [ 87 P.2d 848 ].)”

Birch v. County of Orange

59 Cal. App. 133 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1922

Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 162 Cal. 164 [9 A. L. R. 1277, 121 Pac. 384 ].) Attention has been called to the fact that plaintiffs were accorded a hearing before the county board of equalization. … Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 112 Fed. 607 , approved the method as being legitimate and fair.

McFaddin San Diego 1130, Inc. v. Stroh

208 Cal. App. 3d 1384 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1989

(See Stearns, supra, 6 Cal.3d at pp. 212-213; Cooper v. Board of Medical Examiners (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 931, 941-942 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 563 ]; Code Civ. Proc., § 469.) … (See Tarbox v.

Personnel Commission v. Barstow Unified School District

43 Cal. App. 4th 871 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1996

(Personnel Com. v. Board of Education, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 1467 ; see also California Sch. Employees Assn. v. … (Dixon v. Board of Trustees, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d 1269, 1277 .) In Wygant v.

Martinez v. City of Poway

12 Cal. App. 4th 425 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 1993

(Weil & Brown, Cal. … (Weil & Brown, supra, ¶¶ 8:1717.2, 8:1740.)

Albert Albek, Inc. v. Brock

75 Cal. App. 2d 173 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1946

(Carroll v. California Horse Racing Board, 16 Cal.2d 164 [ 105 P.2d 110 ]; Martin v. Board of Supervisors, 135 Cal.App. 96, 100 [26 P.2d 843]; Irvine v. … (Board of Trustees v. State Board of Equalization, 1 Cal.2d 784, 787 [ 37 P.2d 84 , 96 A.L.R. 775 ].)

A. I. Gage Plumbing Supply Co. v. Local 300 of International Hod Carriers

202 Cal. App. 2d 197 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 1962

Relations Board, 315 U.S. 740, 749 [ 62 S.Ct. 820 , 86 L.Ed. 1154]; United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Constr. … The case of Grunwald-Marx, Inc. v. Los Angeles Joint Board, 52 Cal.2d 568 [ 343 P.2d 23 ], is controlling in the instant ease.

Noguchi v. Civil Service Commission

187 Cal. App. 3d 1521 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1986

(Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners (1948) 32 Cal.2d 301, 308 [ 196 P.2d 20 ]; Murphy v. Board of Medical Examiners (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 161, 162 [ 170 P.2d 510 ]; Hohreiter v. … (Gore v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, supra, 110 Cal.App.3d at p. 184 .) 3.

People v. Fowler

32 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 737 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1938

S.) 328, 330], and State v. Johnson, (1911) 84 Kan. 411 [ 114 Pac. 390 , 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 539, 541]. In Board of Medical Examiners v. Freenor, (1916) 47 Utah, 430 [ 154 Pac. 941, 942 , Ann. … (Corbett v. State Board of Control, (1922) 188 Cal. 289, 291 [ 204 Pac. 823 ]; In re Alpine, (1928) 203 Cal. 731, 737 [ 265 Pac. 947 , 58 A. L. R. 1500]; Bagg v. Wickizer, (1935) 9 Cal.

Industrial Indemnity Co. v. WKRS.'COMP. APP. BD.

60 Cal. App. 4th 548 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1997

60 Cal.App.4th 548 (1997) INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Respondents. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. … Co. v. Ind. Acc.

Valle v. Shaffer

1 Cal. App. 183 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 1905

agencies includes the implied power to employ such agencies; and in such case when the law does not prescribe the means by which the result is to be accomplished, any reasonable and suitable means may be adopted. ’ ’ (Harris v. … The board had the power to appoint an expert medical employee, just as in Harris v.

People v. Ashcraft

138 Cal. App. 2d 820 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1956

The only purpose in alleging a prior conviction is to advise the “Board of Prison Terms and Paroles” of the fact *826 to enable them to determine the proper term of punishment in the event of conviction. (People v. … Ashcraft.” † Same; People v. Brown, 71 Cal.App. 181, 186 [ 235 P. 72 ]; People v. Medalgi, 94 Cal.App. 543, 547 [ 271 P. 552 ]; People v. Bigelow, 64 Cal.App. 731, 732 [ 222 P. 622 ].