Case law

Edson v. Superior Court

98 Cal. App. 367 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1929

Ling, 68 Cal. 324 [ 9 Pac. 171 ]; Thurston v. Clark, 107 Cal. 285 [ 40 Pac. 435 ] ; Woods v. … We quote from the case of Woods v.

Gunn v. Fontes

148 Cal. App. 2d 351 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1957

Co. v. … (Garrison v. Edward Brown & Sons, 25 Cal.2d 473, 478 [ 154 P.2d 377 ]; Estate of Kerr, 127 Cal.App.2d 521, 523-524 [ 274 P.2d 234 ].)

Ellenberger v. Espinosa

30 Cal. App. 4th 943 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1994

(Wilson v. Board of Retirement (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 195, 212-213 [ 329 P.2d 426 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 479, pp. 469-471.) … In Siegert v.

Collins v. Priest

95 Cal. App. 2d 179 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 1949

As was said in Pipoly v. … In Horwith v.

Compton College Federation of Teachers, Local No. 3486 AFT v. Compton Community College District

132 Cal. App. 3d 704 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 1982

In People v. … In People v.

Moreland Teachers Assn. v. Kurze

109 Cal. App. 3d 648 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1980

(Lewin v. Board of Trustees (1976) 62 Cal.App. *654 3d 977, 982 [ 133 Cal.Rptr. 385 ].) Otherwise, more persons would be laid off than necessitated by the decline in ADA. (Burgess v. … (See Burgess v. Board of Education, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 571, 578-579 .)

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.

Cooper v. County of Butte

17 Cal. App. 2d 43 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 1936

In the case of Osburn v. … Plaintiff had no right to maintain her action until she had. presented her claim to the board of supervisors under the provision of that act. (Mello v. County of Tulare, 99 Cal. App. 268 [ 278 Pac. 465 ].)

Noonan v. Green

276 Cal. App. 2d 25 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 4, 1969

At the hearing in the superior court, no evidence was offered and the matter was tried on the stipulation of counsel for the parties. 2 *28 In Akin v. Board of Education of Riverside etc. … (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 292 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R 715]; Buchwald v. Superior Court (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 347, 359 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 364 ].)

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.

San Diego Trust & Savings Bank v. Friends of Gill

121 Cal. App. 3d 203 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 22, 1981

In Day v. … (d); and see Day v.

Randolph v. City of Los Angeles

67 Cal. App. 3d 201 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1977

(See Wiles v. State Personnel Board, 19 Cal.2d 344, 347-348 [ 121 P.2d 673 ]; Waters v. Civil Service Board, 133 Cal.App.2d 733, 736 [ 284 P.2d 919 ].) … Broyles v. State Personnel Board, 42 Cal.App.2d 303, 307 [ 108 P.2d 714 ].)

Simpson v. Payne

79 Cal. App. 780 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 1926

(Graham v. Mayor etc. of Fresno, 151 Cal. 465 [ 91 Pac. 147 ]; Martin v. Election Commrs., 126 Cal. 404 [ 58 Pac. 932 ].) … (Noel v. Lewis, 35 Cal. App. 658 [ 170 Pac. 857 ]; Martin v. Superior Court, 194 Cal. 93 [ 227 Pac. 762 ].)

Cronin v. Coyle

6 Cal. App. 2d 205 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1935

(Frasch v. London & Lancashire F. Ins. Co., 213 Cal. 219 [ 2 Pac. (2d) 147 ].) … (Frasch v. London & Lancashire F. Ins. Co., supra.)

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.

Curl v. Pacific Home

108 Cal. App. 2d 655 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 1952

In Von Arx v. … Proc. § 416, and Gorman v.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Dore

34 Cal. App. 521 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 4, 1917

(Coe v. Persons Unknown, 43 Me. 432 ; Blanchard v. Brooks, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 47; Brown v. Jackson, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 449, [ 4 L. Ed. 432 ] ; Adams v. Cuddy, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 460, [ 25 Am. Dec. 330 ]; *524 Allen v. … (Mass.) 458; Sweet v. Brown, 12 Met. (Mass.) 175, [ 45 Am. Dec. 243 ]; Pike v. Galvin, 29 Me. 183 .) This construction is in accord with the obvious meaning of the language.

In Re Dennis

46 Cal. App. 3d 50 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1975

Brown. … (People v. Brown, 29 Cal.2d 555 ; People v. Knowles, 35 *59 Cal.2d 175; In re Ward, 64 Cal.2d 672 ; People v. Gomez, 252 Cal.App.2d 844 ; People v. Paxton, 255 Cal.App.2d 62 .)”

Holmes v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.

156 Cal. App. 3d 372 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1984

(Brown v. Clorox Co., supra, 56 Cal.App.3d at p. 313 .) … A similar situation was presented in Brown v.

Severance v. Ball

93 Cal. App. 56 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1928

(Sarter v. Siskiyou, County, 42 Cal. App. 530 [ 183 Pac. 852 ]; Welsh v. Bramlett, 98 Cal. 219 [ 33 Pac. 66 ]; Humboldt County v. Stern, 136 Cal. 63 [ 68 Pac. 324 ]; Humiston v. Shaffer, 145 Cal. 195 [ 78 Pac. 651 ].) … The board of supervisors might have had the mileage measured in a different manner, but that does not prevent the board of supervisors from adopting the method pursued in the instant case.