Case law

City of Santa Barbara v. County of Santa Barbara

94 Cal. App. 3d 277 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 1979

V, § 13, *286 §§ 26600-26603. Or stated otherwise, uniform law enforcement throughout the county normally requires more extensive enforcement in populated areas. … Having thus incorrectly applied the law in reaching its decision, the action of the board was subject to review in mandamus proceedings. (Strumsky v.

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 ].)

People v. Sharman

17 Cal. App. 3d 550 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 1971

California Horse Racing Board, 222 Cal.App.2d 831 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 642 ]); suspension by the State Medical Board (Meyer v. … Board of Medical Examiners, 34 Cal.2d 62 [ 206 P.2d 1085 ]); suspension by the State Board of Education (Fountain v. State Board of Education, 157 Cal.App.2d 463 [ 320 P.2d 899 ]); and deportation (Kelly v.

City of Oakland v. Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System

California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2018

(Children & Families Com. of Fresno County v. Brown (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 45, 55 (Children & Families).) However, this is not a purely objective analysis. … (Bouvia v.

People v. Wales

136 Cal. App. 2d 846 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1955

In People v. … In People v.

California School Employees Ass'n v. King City Union Elementary School District

116 Cal. App. 3d 695 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 1981

(Bourland v. … (See Lucas v. Board of Trustees *703 (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 988, 992 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 431 ].)

Montague v. Benjamin

116 Cal. App. 112 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1931

Code, sec. 169; Brown v. Brown, 170 Cal. 1 [ 147 Pac. 1168 ]; Id., 170 Cal. 8 [ 147 Pac. 1171 ].) The decree is affirmed. Works, P. J., and Archbald, J., pro hem., concurred.

Randolph v. County of Stanislaus

44 Cal. App. 322 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1919

The case of People v. Board of Supervisors of Shasta County, reported in 75 Cal. 179 , [ 16 Pac. 776 ], is very much in point. … (Citing Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 301; Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 589 ; Manson v. Koppikus, 11 Cal. 89 ; Miller v. Grunsky, 141 Cal. 447 , [ 66 Pac. 858 , 75 Pac. 48 ].)

Red Bluff Developers v. County of Tehama

258 Cal. App. 2d 668 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1968

(Delaney v. Lowery, 25 Cal.2d 561 [ 154 P.2d 674 ] ; Graciosa Oil Co. v. County of Santa Barbara, 155 Cal. 140 [ 99 P. 483 , 20 L.R.A. N.S. 211]; State of California v. Moore, 12 Cal. 56 ; County of Los Angeles v. … (De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 45 Cal.2d 546, 564 [ 290 P.2d 544 ].) This court’s review is limited to the valuation figure found by the board and its method of valuation. (County of Amador v.

Brummund v. City of Oakland

111 Cal. App. 2d 114 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1952

Appellants rely principally upon Goodwin v. Board of Trustees, 72 Cal.App.2d 445 [ 164 P.2d 512 ]. … (See Levitt v. Glen L. Clark & Co., 91 Cal.App.2d 662 [ 205 P.2d 747 ]; Marra v. Aetna Construction Co., 15 Cal.2d 375 [ 101 P.2d 490 ].)

Cope v. Steckel

3 Cal. App. 2d 492 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 1935

of said board of inquiry. … (Tapley v. Abbott, 111 Cal. App. 397 [ 295 Pac. 911 ].) Appellant next asserts that the chief of police failed to affirm the board’s action within the five days provided by section 202' of the charter.

Garden Grove Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. City of Garden Grove

176 Cal. App. 2d 136 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 1959

See also Steiger v. Board of Supervisors, 143 Cal. App.2d 352 [ 300 P.2d 210 ], and Flagstad v. City of San Mateo, 156 Cal.App.2d 138 [ 318 P.2d 825 ]. … (See Rubin v. Board of Directors, 16 Cal.2d 119, 126 [ 104 P.2d 1041 ], and cases there cited.)

County of Santa Clara v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · May 19, 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.

Roberts v. Western Pacific Railroad

104 Cal. App. 2d 816 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1951

In its memorandum opinion the trial court stated: “The eases recently decided by the Supreme Court of the United States entitled Slocum v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. Co. and O.R.C. v. … We believe that in the recent cases of Slocum v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 339 U.S. 239 [ 70 S.Ct. 577 , 94 L.Ed. 795 ] and Order of Railway Conductors v.

People v. Lara

206 Cal. App. 3d 1297 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1988

(Miller v. Stein (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 381, 385 [ 302 P.2d 403 ].) … (People v.

O'CONNELL v. Superior Court

47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 147 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 2006

(Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2006) <J[ 9:632.1, p. 9(II)-30 (rev. # 1, 2005); cf. Anderson v. … MTR Board of Educ. v. Amback (N.Y.App.Div. 1982) 90 A.D.2d 227 [ 458 N.Y.S.2d 680 ]; cf. Anderson v. Banks (S.D.Ga. 1981) 520 F.Supp. 472, 505 .)

Delta Wetlands Properties v. County of San Joaquin

16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 672 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2004

In Kehoe v. … (U.S. v. Morrow (1925) 266 U.S. 531 , *141 534-535 [ 69 L.Ed. 425, 427 , 45 S.Ct. 173 , 60 Ct.Cl. 1023 ]; Reuter v. Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County (1934) 220 Cal. 314, 321 [ 30 P.2d 417 ].)

Bates v. Escondido Union High School District

133 Cal. App. 725 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 15, 1933

(Damgaard v. Oakland High School Dist., 212 Cal. 316 [ 298 Pac. 983 ]; Maede v. Oakland High School Dist., 212 Cal. 419 [ 298 Pac. 987 ]; Henry v. Garden Grove Union High School Dist., 119 Cal. … (Leymel v. Johnson, 105 Cal. App. 694 [ 288 Pac. 858 ].)

People v. Becker

108 Cal. App. 2d 764 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1952

Moreover, we think, as did the court in Inchbald v. … The defendant resigned from the Board of Education so as not to embarrass its members while a conviction hung over his head.' In Commonwealth v.

California Teachers Ass'n v. Pasadena Unified School District

79 Cal. App. 3d 556 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1978

Board of Trustees, 64 Cal.App.3d 59, 62-63 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 220 ]; American Federation of Teachers v. Board of Education, 77 Cal.App.3d 100, 106-108 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 264 ]; and Santa Barbara Federation of Teachers v. … (Rutherford v. Board of Trustees, 64 Cal.App.3d 167, 180 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 290 ].)