Case law

Fountain v. City of Sacramento

1 Cal. App. 461 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 1905

(Fratt v. Clark, 12 Cal. 89 ; Roberts v. Evans, 43 Cal. 380 ; De La Guerra v. Newhall, 55 Cal. 20 ; Lehmann v. Schmidt, 87 Cal 15, [ 25 Pac. 161 ] ; Chitenden v. Pratt, 89 Cal. 173 , [ 26 Pac. 626 ] ; Lataillade v. … In Roberts 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 ].)

East Side Union High School District v. Whittle Communications, L. P.

28 Cal. App. 4th 998 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 1994

Veterans’ Welfare Board v. Riley (1922) 189 Cal. 159, 164-166 [ 208 P. 678 , 22 A.L.R. 1531 ] [special educational opportunities for veterans]; University of So. California v. … Schempp (1963) 374 U.S. 203, 226 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 844, 860-861 , 83 S.Ct. 1560 ]) or ideological (cf., e.g., Board of Education v.

Stanwyck v. Horne

146 Cal. App. 3d 450 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1983

The board revoked the dismissal and ordered Simpson to return Hardy to his position at the college. No review of the board’s decision was sought and Hardy was returned to his position. The decision in Hardy v. … We have taken judicial notice of the records on appeal in Hardy v.

Bank of Coronado v. Shreve

51 Cal. App. 353 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 1921

said members of said board in the above-entitled matter . . . … amend the entry in the register made under section 1283 of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to conform to the requirements of that section and with the terms of the agreement of submission (California Academy of Sciences v.

Consolidated Liquidating Corp. v. Ford

131 Cal. App. 2d 576 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1955

(Stewart Law & Collection Co. v. County of Alameda, 142 Cal. 660, 665 [ 76 P. 481 ].) “Independent” as used in the last above sentence means not subject to control by others, not subordinate. (Webster’s Inter. Dict.) … The other contentions of appellants have been answered by this court in Hochfelder v. County of Los Angeles, 126 Cal.App.2d 370 [ 272 P.2d 844 ], decided after this appeal had *580 been lodged.

People v. Martinez

13 Cal. App. 4th 23 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 8, 1993

(Brown, supra, 174 Cal.App.3d at p. 766 .) The court concluded the Legislature intentionally omitted the requirement of specific intent from section 12022.8. ( Brown, supra, at p. 767 .) … (See, e.g., People v.

People v. Jefferson

230 Cal. App. 2d 151 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 1964

When appellant Jefferson answered the questions, the officer noticed a brown paper cigarette in his mouth and a brown leafy substance adhering to his lips. The officer believed it was a narcotic. … In Silverman v.

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.

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.

City of Oakland v. Oakland Unified School District

138 Cal. App. 2d 406 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 1956

(Pasadena School Dist. v. Pasadena, 166 Cal. 7, 11 [ 134 P. 985 , Ann.Cas. 1915B 1039, 47 L.R.A.N.S. 892 ] ; Skelly v. Westminster School Dist., 103 Cal. 652, 659 [ 37 P. 643 ].) … (Orloff v. Metropolitan Trust Co., 17 Cal.2d 484 [ 110 P.2d 396 ] ; Maselli v. E. H. Appleby & Co., Inc., 117 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 256 P.2d 618 ]; Rylee v. De Fini, 134 Cal.App.2d Supp. 877 [ 285 P.2d 115 ].)

People v. Ritchie

17 Cal. App. 3d 1098 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 1971

(People v. Curtiss, supra, 4 Cal.App.3d 123, 126.) They are set up in People v. … (People v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d 672, 678 ; People v. Beasley, supra, 5 Cal.App.3d 617, 637 ; People v.

Vanoli v. Munro

147 Cal. App. 2d 179 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1956

University v. State Board of Equalization, 1 Cal.2d 784 [ 37 P.2d 84 , 96 A.L.R. 775 ] ; Gunn v. State Board of Equalization, 123 Cal.App.2d 283 [ 266 P.2d 840 ].) … University v. State Board of Equalization, 1 Cal.2d 784 [ 37 P.2d 84 , 96 A.L.R. 775 ], which involved the proper application of section 172a to the campus of Stanford.

Wade v. Rathbun

23 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 758 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 1937

Co. v. Neale, (1888) 78 Cal. 63, 68 [ 20 Pac. 372 , 3 L. R. A. 83] (an eminent domain case); Santa Ana v. Harlin, (1893) 99 Cal. 538, 542 [ 34 Pac. 224 ] (also an eminent domain case) ; Wickersham Co. v. … (Estate of Brown, (1899) 123 Cal. 399, 401 [ 55 Pac. 1055 , 69 Am. St. Rep. 74 ].) The meaning of a statute is to be determined so far as possible from its language (23 Cal. Jur. 730).

H. W. Rohl Co. v. County of San Diego

212 Cal. App. 2d 707 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1963

Inc., v. … In Rubin v.

People v. Great American Insurance

222 Cal. App. 2d 552 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1963

Code, § 2837; Bank of America v. … As stated in Meyers v.

In Re Singler

169 Cal. App. 4th 1227 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 2008

In 2006, the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) found that Singler was not suitable for parole. … After being informed of his Miranda rights (Miranda v.

People v. Vela

California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2018

In Brown, the court held that a statutory change that temporarily increased conduct credits for prisoners did not apply retroactively. (Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 323-324.) … In Brown, the Supreme Court distinguished Estrada and held that the conduct credits law did “not alter 3 In People v. Superior Court (Lara), supra, 4 Cal.5th 299, the California Supreme Court disapproved of People v.

Logan v. Southern California Rapid Transit District

136 Cal. App. 3d 116 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 1982

(Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ].) The California Supreme Court, relying on United States Supreme Court cases of Board of Regents v. … (See Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 305 U.S. 197 . . .; Walker v. City of San Gabriel, 20 Cal. 2d 879 . . .; Dyment v. Board of Medical Examiners, 93 Cal.App. 65 ....)” (Steen v.

Ocean View Teachers Ass'n v. Bd. of Trustees of Ocean View Sch. Dist. of Orange Cty.

94 Cal. App. 2d 294 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 1979

(Fn. omitted.) *301 Citing section 45024 and Campbell v. … Under Serrano v.