Case law

In Re Jackson

182 Cal. App. 3d 439 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 1986

(Italics added, People v. Fusaro (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 877, 888 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 368 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. … (People v. Fusaro, supra, 18 Cal.App.3d at p. 888 .)

Westerman v. Cleland

12 Cal. App. 63 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1909

Upon the point, it was held in Swafford v. … Appellant claims that his case is identical' with Williams v.

Stern v. City Council of Berkeley

25 Cal. App. 685 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 1914

(McKenzie v. Board of Education, 1 Cal. App. 407 ; [ 82 Pac. 392 ] ; Kennedy v. Miller, 97 Cal. 429 , [ 32 Pac. 558 ].) … (Potwin v. Johnson, 108 Ill. 70 ; People ex rel. v. Hoffman, 116 Ill. 587 , [ 56 Am. Rep. 793 , 5 N. E. 596 , 8 N. E. 788 ]; Ladd v. Holmes, 40 Or., 167 , [ 91 Am. St. Rep. 457 , 66 Pac. 714 ]; Nichols v.

Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir

California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2018

(Quintano v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1049, 1055; Schmidt v. Retirement Board (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1210.) … (Totten v. Board of Supervisors (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 826, 838 (Totten).)

Reeves v. Superior Court

36 Cal. App. 3d 291 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1973

Instead, Education Code section 13412, as amended, provided: “When any employee who has been served with notice of the governing board’s intention to dismiss him demands a hearing, the governing board shall have the option … (Be rg v. Traeger, 210 Cal. 323, 325 [ 292 P. 495 ]; Dahlstet v. Dahlstet, 272 Cal.App.2d 174, 179 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 45 ]; Architectural Tile Co. v. Superior Court, 108 Cal.App. 369, 371-372 [ 291 P. 586 ]; Willen v.

People v. Shannon

78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 177 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 4, 1998

In support, both texts cite People v. Brown (1894) 105 Cal. 66 [ 38 P. 518 ], which reversed a burglary conviction based on incorrect jury instructions. … However, by mistake Brown took another’s bicycle. Brown was caught before he could return the bicycle.

Garner v. City of Riverside

170 Cal. App. 3d 510 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1985

(See, e.g., Allen v. Humboldt County Board of Supervisors (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 877, 883 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 232 ].) … hearings conducted by the governing body of a contracting agency, the court in Reynolds v.

Sierra Club v. County of San Diego CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2026

Filed 6/26/26 Sierra Club v. … Chatten-Brown Law Group, Josh Chatten-Brown, Kathryn Pettit and Isabella Coye for Petitioner and Appellant. David J.

Carlino v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

10 Cal. App. 4th 1526 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1992

by statute, the board of education would be responsible for liability and city clerk is not a subordinate officer of the board of education) and Kaslavage v. … (Olden v.

Poschman v. Dumke

31 Cal. App. 3d 932 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 1973

(Bogacki v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 5 Cal.3d 771, 781-782 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 489 P.2d 537 ]; Stanton v. Dumke (1966) 64 Cal.2d 199, 207 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 380 , 411 P.2d 108 ].) … Younger v. County of El Dorado (1971) 5 Cal.3d 480, 491 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 553 , 487 P.2d 1193 ]; May v. Board of Directors (1949) 34 Cal.2d 125, 133-134 [ 208 P.2d 661 ].)

Ascherman v. Natanson

23 Cal. App. 3d 861 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1972

On March 24, 1964, the board of directors (Board) of the hospital district denied his application. … (Watson v. M’Ewan [1905] A.C. 480 Youmans v. Smith (1897) 153 N.Y. 214 [ 47 N.E. 265 ]; Zirn v.

Fredericksen v. Harney

199 Cal. App. 2d 189 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1962

On July 29, 1959, the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, acting by and through the Reclamation Board of the State of California, filed a proceeding in eminent domain against Charles L. … Brown, J., and Stone, J., concurred. Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 14, 1962.

Musto-Keenan Co. v. City of Los Angeles

139 Cal. App. 506 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1934

(Bigelow v. Ballerino, 111 Cal. 559 [ 44 Pac. 307 ]; Sala v. City of Pasadena, 162 Cal. 714 [ 124 Pac. 539 ].) Whether or not in this ease plaintiffs failed to make due and timely objection will be discussed later. … (Potter v. Ames, 43 Cal. 75 .) We are of the opinion, therefore, that appellants did not have sufficient notice of the proposed change of grade.

Hennessy v. Hall

14 Cal. App. 759 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1910

Co. v. Dodds, 7 Nev. 143 , [ 8 Am. Rep. 709 ].) Stating that “due diligence was used” is merely alleging the fact, while “showing” it is to state the evidentiary facts which make it manifest or prove it. In Coyle v. … In Ellis v.

Graham v. Bryant

123 Cal. App. 2d 66 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1954

It is not required that abuse of discretion in the meaning of section 1094.5 is alleged in so many words (Boren v. State Personnel Board, 37 Cal.2d 634, 640 [ 234 P.2d 981 ]). … (Smith v. City of Long Beach, 105 Cal.App.2d 618, 621 [ 234 P.2d 191 ]; Jones v. O’Toole, 190 Cal. 252, 256 [ 212 P. 9 ].)

Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. STATE OF CALIF.

199 Cal. App. 3d 686 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1988

(See Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 521, 533, 536 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 795 ].) … Finally, Board contends that District should be collaterally estopped to challenge Board’s interpretation, in the manner “the state” was held estopped in Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v.

County of Orange v. BARRATT AMERICAN, INC.

58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 542 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2007

(Carlton Browne & Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 35, 40 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 118 ].) … (Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 228, 235 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 101 ].) But the power to adopt a budgeted expenditure does not insulate the County from judicial attack.

Huston v. Schohr

63 Cal. App. 2d 267 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1944

Co., 160 Cal. 48, 52, 53 [ 116 P. 400 ]; Cosby v. Cline, 186 Cal. 698, 702 [ 200 P. 801 ]; County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Co., 53 Cal.App. 166, 175 [ 200 P. 27 ]; Raddant v. … Also see Lowe v. San Francisco etc. Ry. Co., 154 Cal. 573, 575-576 [ 98 P. 678 ]; Easom v. General Mortgage Co., 101 Cal.App. 186, 192 [ 281 P. 514 ]; Coats v. Hathorn, 121 Cal. App. 257, 259 [ 8 P.2d 1038 ]; Farrell v.

Zenos v. Britten-Cook Land & Livestock Co.

75 Cal. App. 299 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 1925

(Curtis v. Richards & Vantine, 9 Cal. 33, 38 ; San Francisco Gas Co. v. City of San Francisco, 9 Cal. 452, 466 ; Loveland v. Garner, 74 Cal. 298, 300 [ 15 Pac. 844 ]; Zany v. Rawhide Gold Mining Co., 15 Cal. … A. 623 ], Aigeltinger, Inc., v.

Reimel v. House

268 Cal. App. 2d 780 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1969

(Martin v. Alcoholic Beverage etc. Appeals Board, 52 Cal.2d 238, 244-245 [ 340 P.2d 1 ].) … (Bollinger v. Bollinger, 153 Cal. 190, 195-196 [ 94 P. 770 ] ; King v. Green, 7 Cal.App. 473, 478 [94 P.777].)