Case law

Hansen v. Civil Service Board

147 Cal. App. 2d 732 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1957

Code, §§ 11500,11501; Bertch v. … They are very like the findings approved in Swars v.

Raney v. Board of Trustees

239 Cal. App. 2d 256 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1966

In the case of Griggs v. … (See Horner v. Board of Trustees, 61 Cal.2d 79, 82 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 389 P.2d 713 ].)

McCarthy v. Board of Supervisors

15 Cal. App. 576 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1911

At the same session of the board the county surveyor advised said board that said bridge could be constructed for a sum less than the amount of the lowest bid, and thereupon the said board refused to award the construction … (Thorpe v. Rutland etc. R. R. Co., 27 Vt. 142 , [ 62 Am. Dec. 625 ].) Indeed, there is, in our own constitution (art.

Cipriotti v. Board of Directors

147 Cal. App. 3d 144 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1983

(Unterthiner v. Desert Hospital Dist., supra, 33 Cal.3d 285 ; Bixby v. … (Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 31 Cal.3d 124, 139, fn. 6 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 642 P.2d 792 ].)

People v. Board of Supervisors

126 Cal. App. 670 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 1932

of Supervisors, or other governing board with the written consent of the district attorney, city attorney, or other legal adviser of said board. … Respondent relies upon the case of Santa Monica v. Los Angeles County, 15 Cal. App. 710 [ 115 Pac. 945, 946 ].

Hooks v. State Personnel Board

111 Cal. App. 3d 572 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1980

(Nightingale v. State Personnel Board (1972) 7 Cal.3d 507 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 758 , 498 P.2d 1006 ].) We conclude and hold that subdivision (t) applied to Hooks. … There was no abuse of discretion (see Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 15 Cal.3d 194, 217 ; Nightingale v. State Personnel Board, supra, 7 Cal.3d 507, 515; Gillies v.

Geftakys v. State Personnel Board

138 Cal. App. 3d 844 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1982

Younger v. … (United States v. State of California (1974) 504 F.2d 750 , cert. den. U.S. v.

Chirmside v. Board of Administration

143 Cal. App. 3d 205 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1983

We do not consider or accept Lionberger as authority for the assertion that the terminable interest doctrine has survived Brown. Henn v. … Board of Education (1964) 61 Cal.2d 612, 627 , fh. 9 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 739 , 394 P.2d 579 ]; see also Patillo v. Norris (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 209, 217 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 210 ].)

Skouti v. Franchise Tax Board

California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 2025

(Davis v. … We find a Fifth Circuit case cited by the Board more on point than Davis: Woodall v. C.I.R. (5th Cir. 1992) 964 F.2d 361.

Handlery v. Franchise Tax Board

26 Cal. App. 3d 970 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 1972

Obviously the board may not by its regulation renounce the discretion imposed on it by statute. (See Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.2d 538, 548 [ 225 P.2d 905 ]; People v. … (Whittell v. Franchise Tax Board, 231 Cal.App.2d 278, 286 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 673 ].)

Rogers v. Board of Education

261 Cal. App. 2d 355 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1968

(See Tubbs v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., supra, at p. 676.) … (See Tubbs v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., supra, 67 Cal.2d 671, 677-678 .) Finally, the proposed amended complaint fails to state any facts sufficient to raise an estoppel. In Tubbs v. Southern Cal.

Payne v. State Personnel Board

162 Cal. App. 2d 679 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 1958

The ease of Butterworth v. … (State v. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen, 37 Cal.2d 412, 417 [ 232 P.2d 857 ].) In the case of Boren v.

Brown v. Los Angeles Railway Co.

2 Cal. App. 618 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 1906

Robinson v. Board of Retirement

140 Cal. App. 2d 115 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 1956

La Prade v. Department of Water & Power, 27 Cal.2d 47, 53 [ 162 P.2d 13 ]; Rogers v. Retirement Board, 109 Cal.App.2d 751, 757 [ 241 P.2d 611 ].) … Corp. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 180 Cal. 389 [ 182 P. 35 ]; Walsh v. Industrial Acc.

Goggin v. State Personnel Board

156 Cal. App. 3d 96 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1984

Neither court may reweigh the evidence, and both courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Board’s findings and indulge in all reasonable inferences in support thereof. (Maynard v. … As the court in Willson v.

Hopper v. State Personnel Board

204 Cal. App. 2d 273 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1962

(Martin v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Board, 52 Cal.2d 287 [ 341 P.2d 296 ].) … In the recent case of Magit v.

Board of Trustees v. Munro

163 Cal. App. 2d 440 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 11, 1958

(Dethlefsen v. Board of Equalization, 145 Cal.App.2d 561, 563 [ 303 P.2d 7 ]; Molina v. Munro, 145 Cal.App.2d 601 [ 302 P.2d 818 ].) … (Thompson v. City of Long Beach, 41 Cal.2d 235, 241 [ 259 P.2d 649 ]; Oxman v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 153 Cal.App.2d 740, 744 [ 315 P.2d 484 ]; Marcucci v.

Board of Trustees v. Rodley

38 Cal. App. 563 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 7, 1918

In Rudel v. … In Woods v.

Phillips v. State Personnel Board

184 Cal. App. 3d 651 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1986

In Zike v. … That request results in a full hearing before the State Personnel Board. (See Goggin v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 156 Cal.App.3d 96 ; Zike v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 145 Cal.App.3d 817 ; Willson v.

Scuri v. Board of Supervisors

134 Cal. App. 3d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1982

(See, e.g., Hunter v. Pittsburgh (1907) 207 U.S. 161, 179 [ 52 L.Ed. 151, 159 , 28 S.Ct. 40 ]; Curtis v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 7 Cal.3d 942, 951 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 501 P.2d 537 ].) … (Curtis v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 951 .)