Case law

Maywood Mutual Water Co. No. 3 v. County of Los Angeles

12 Cal. App. 3d 957 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1970

(Bank of America v. Mundo, 37 Cal.2d 1, 5 [ 229 P.2d 345 ].) … Hence “The issue before a reviewing court is whether there was substantial evidence before the *961 board [of equalization] upon which its determination could have been founded.” (A. F. Gilmore Co. v.

Hopson v. City of Los Angeles

139 Cal. App. 3d 347 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 1983

The Supreme Court in White v. … (Skelly v.

People v. Barrow

233 Cal. App. 3d 721 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 1991

(Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236, 254-255 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 651 P.2d 274 ].) *461 Appellant relies on the recent case of Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Pol. … (Brosnahan v. Brown, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 255 ; In re Nordin (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 538, 540-541 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 38 ]; 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.

Berry v. Alderson

59 Cal. App. 729 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1922

The record shows that a complaint was filed before the Board of Medical Examiners by one Frank M. … Co. v. Keyser, 58 Cal. 315 , quoting from it the following language: “It is an ancient maxim, and one founded in the most obvious principles of natural right, that no man ought to be a judge in his own cause. ...

Tarpy v. County of San Diego

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 607 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 2003

The next day, Tarpy went to the South County Animal Shelter to claim Luke and became upset when he learned that the actual fee to reclaim Luke was $211 (which included the fees described above and a $6 boarding fee). … (Bialo v. Western Mutual Ins. Co., supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 78 .)

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.

Strock v. Pickwick Stages System

107 Cal. App. 298 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 1930

The fact that after pleading negligence in general terms plaintiff offered testimony tending to show specific acts of negligence did not preclude him from relying on the doctrine (Kilgore v. Brown, 90 Cal. … This was true, notwithstanding the fact that the injuries complained of may have been caused by some other agency (Brown v. Davis, 84 Cal.

Rathjen Bros. v. Collins

50 Cal. App. 2d 774 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 1942

These conclusions find complete support in State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. App. (2d) 374 [ 42 Pac. (2d) 1076 ].” … (People v. Seymour, 16 Cal. 332 [ 76 Am. Dec. 521 ] ; Moore v. Patch, 12 Cal. 265 ; see, also, Roth Drug, Inc. v. Johnson, 13 Cal. App. (2d) 720 [ 57 Pac. (2d) 1022 ].)

Mansperger v. Public Employees' Retirement System

6 Cal. App. 3d 873 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1970

Co. v. Huckins (1937) 127 Fla. 540 [ 173 So. 696, 700 ].) In the case of Quincy Retirement Board v. … (Dillard v. City of Los Angeles (1942) 20 Cal.2d 599 [ 127 P.2d 917 ]; Hurley v. Sykes (1924) 69 Cal.App. 310 [ 231 P. 748 ].) The object of the disability allowance is not solely to compensate a member with a pension.

LaGrone v. City of Oakland

202 Cal. App. 4th 932 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2011

(Board). … (Connerly v.

Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of San Mateo

31 Cal. App. 4th 418 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1995

(Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. … City of Los Angeles (1962) 57 Cal.2d 515, 533 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 638 , 370 P.2d 342 ], quoting Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477, 495 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ].)

People v. Carlos E.

26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 2005

First, in People v. … Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571, 577 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 , 828 P.2d 147 ].) This rule applies whether the specific statute was passed before or after the general statute. (Warne v.

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

97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 8 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 2000

(Atari Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 665, 672 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 267 ] citation and footnote omitted; see also Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. … (Kuykendall v.

Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga

175 Cal. App. 4th 1306 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 2009

(McMurtry v. State Board of Medical Examiners (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 760, 766 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 910 ] (McMurtry).) … (City of Morgan Hill v. Brown, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1121 [the pleadings govern the issues to be addressed].)

Roussey v. City of Burlingame

100 Cal. App. 2d 321 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 1950

(Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477, 484 [ 234 P. 381 , 38 A.L.R. 1479 ], and eases cited.) … The remedy of mandamus is available where it is alleged and shown that a local board has acted arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretion. (Naughton v. Retirement Board of S.

In re Taplett

188 Cal. App. 4th 440 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 2010

On November 12, 2008, the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) found Taplett suitable for parole. … Article V, section 8, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution reads: “No decision of the parole authority of this State with respect to the granting, denial, revocation, or suspension of parole of a person sentenced

Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City & County of San Francisco

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 455 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1999

(E.g., Mira Monte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Ventura (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 127 ]; Environmental Council v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 428 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 363 ].) … (See Sierra Club v.

People v. Turner

267 Cal. App. 2d 440 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1968

(See People v. Photo (1941) 45 C.A.2d 345, 353, 114 P.2d 71 ; People v. Brown (1894) 105 C. 66 , 69, 38 P. 518 ; People v. Pillsbury (1943) 59 C.A.2d 107, 111, 138 P.2d 320 ; *444 People v. … (See Roberts v. State, supra, 136 Tex.Cr.Rep. 138 [ 124 S.W.2d 128 ] ; Hooks v. State, 154 Tenn. 43 [ 289 S.W. 529 ]; State v. Brown (Mo.) 217 S.W.2d 546 ; Dixon v.

Beverly Hospital v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES CTY.

19 Cal. App. 4th 1289 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1993

(Roe v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 642, 646 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 745 ]; Green v. Bristol Myers Co. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 604, 609, fn. 5 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 745 ]; Weil & Brown, supra, ¶ 8:450, p. 8E-11.) … (Weil & Brown, supra, ¶ 8:451, p. 8E-11; cf. Richaud v. Jennings (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 81, 90-91 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 790 ].)

People v. Schoeller

96 Cal. App. 2d 55 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1950

board. … (People v. Klinkenberg, 90 Cal.App.2d 608, 626 [204 *61 P.2d 47, 58] ; People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ].) Judgment and order affirmed. Purported appeal from sentence dismissed. Moore, P.