Case law

Hetzel v. Franchise Tax Board

161 Cal. App. 2d 224 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 1958

Hetzel’s contentions were rejected by that board. … Rev. v. Heininger, supra, at 474 .

Heard v. Board of Administration

39 Cal. App. 2d 685 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1940

They were ■first employed under the authority of the standardization ordinance, code No. 8592 V, which authorized the board of public works to employ truck owners at a rate of $381.50 *689 per month for a four-yard five-ton … (Boyd v. City of Sierra Madre, 41 Cal. App. 520 [ 183 Pac. 230 ]; City of Pasadena v. Charleville, 215 Cal. 384 [ 10 Pac. (2d) 745 ].) Plaintiffs’ reliance upon Department of Water & Power v. Industrial Acc.

Forker v. Board of Trustees

160 Cal. App. 3d 13 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1984

(E.g., Brough v. Governing Board (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 702, 714-715 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 729 ] and Moreland Teachers Assn. v. … (Russell v. Thermalito Union School Dist., supra, at pp. 883-884; Board of Education v. Commission on Professional Competence, supra, at pp. 563-565.)

Bates v. Franchise Tax Board

21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 285 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 2004

In Gatto v. County of Sonoma, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at pp. 761-762, the court examined Eureka Teacher’s Assn. v. Board of Education (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 469 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 790 ], Loehr v. … In Loehr v.

Board of Supervisors v. Dolan

45 Cal. App. 3d 237 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 1975

City of Long Beach (1959) 51 Cal.2d 875 [ 338 P.2d 177 ]; City of Oakland v. Williams (1929) 206 Cal. 315 [ 274 P. 328 ]; Veterans’ Welfare Board v. … (City of Oxnard v. Dale (1955) 45 Cal.2d 729, 737 [ 290 P.2d 859 ]; City of Palm Springs v. Ringwald (1959) 52 Cal.2d 620, 626 [ 342 P.2d 898 ]; City of Redondo Beach v.

Grosjean v. Board of Education

40 Cal. App. 434 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1919

(Hutcheson v. Storrie (Tex. Civ.), 48 S. W. 785 ; Greeley v. Hamman, 17 Colo. 30 , [ 28 Pac. 460 ] ; Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed., p. 113 ; Heiskell v. Mayor etc. of Baltimore, 65 Md. 125 , [ 57 Am. … (People v. Common Council of Rochester, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 11 ; Nelson v. City of Omaha, 84 Neb. 434 , [ 121 N.

Peter v. Board of Supervisors

78 Cal. App. 2d 515 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1947

It is elemental that in proceedings of this kind the order under attack can only be vacated if the board of supervisors exceeded its jurisdiction in making it. (Garvin v. Chambers, 195 Cal. 212 [ 232 P. 696 ]; Nider v. … Fink, 121 Cal.App. 14 [ 8 P.2d 493 ]; Heard v. Board of Administration, 39 Cal.App.2d 685 [ 104 P.2d 47 ].)

Thaxton v. State Personnel Board

5 Cal. App. 5th 681 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 2016

"The legislative scheme governing State Personnel Board review of disciplinary actions appears in the Government Code and is described . . . in Skelly v. … State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 [124 Cal.Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774] (Skelly)." (State Personnel Bd. v.

Stewart v. State Personnel Board

250 Cal. App. 2d 445 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1967

(Shepherd, v. State Personnel Board, 48 Cal.2d 41, 46-47 [ 307 P.2d 4 ] ; Genser v. State Personnel Board, 112 Cal.App.2d 77, 80 [ 245 P.2d 1090 ].) … (Neely v. California State Personnel Board, supra, 237 Cal.App.2d at p. 489 ; Hingsbergen v. State Personnel Board, 240 Cal.App.2d 914, 916-917 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 59 ].)

Guymon v. Board of Accountancy

55 Cal. App. 3d 1010 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1976

(Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 68 Cal.2d 67, 69 ; Bixby v. Pierno, supra, 4 Cal.3d 130, 138.) … (Petrucci v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d 83, 87 .)

Sayre v. Board of Trustees

9 Cal. App. 3d 488 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1970

(Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.2d 753 [ 112 P.2d 229 ]; Lawe v. El Monte School Dist., 267 Cal.App.2d 20 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 554 ]; Eastham v. … As the court said in Aebli v. Board of Education, 62 Cal.App.2d 706, 757 [ 145 P.2d 601 ]: “The law vests the board with the power to determine policy.

Parke v. Board of Trustees

34 Cal. App. 632 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 1917

This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment granting to plaintiff a writ of mandate addressed to the defendants, the Board of Trustees of the Firemen’s Relief and Pension Fund of the city of Oakland,- and its *633 members … of the department shall be not *634 less than 21 nor more than 35 years of age, and before his appointment must pass a satisfactory examination under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Civil Service Board

Petersen v. Civil Service Board

68 Cal. App. 752 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 1924

(Petersen v. Civil Service Board, 67 Cal. App. 70 [ 227 Pac. 238 ].) .The respondents then petitioned for a hearing before the supreme court and their petition was denied on June 26, 1924. (Petersen v. … (People v. Sprague, 57 Cal. 147 ; Rowland v. Kreyenhagen, 24 Cal. 52 .)’ (See Trumpler v. Trumpler, 123 Cal. 248 [ 55 Pac. 1008 ].)” The motion is denied. St. Sure, J., and Tyler, P. J., concurred.

Grant v. Board of Retirement

253 Cal. App. 2d 1020 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 1967

Board of Retirement, supra, 198 Cal.App.2d 397 , Rapp v. … City of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.2d 599 [ 127 P.2d 917 ]; Naughton v. Retirement Board of San Francisco, 43 Cal.App.2d 254 [ 110 P.2d 714 ]).

Brown Materials Co. v. Pacific Automobile Insurance

52 Cal. App. 2d 760 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1942

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 ].)

Mann v. Workmen's Compensation Board

265 Cal. App. 2d 333 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1968

(Jones v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 476, 479 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 544 , 439 P.2d 648 ].) … (Hines v. Industrial Acc. Com., 215 Cal. 177, 188 [ 8 P.2d 1021 ].)

Leonard v. Board of Education

36 Cal. App. 2d 595 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1940

“V. … It is true as alleged in paragraph V of the amended petition that on or about the eleventh day of June, 1937, the Board of Education notified the petitioner that on and after June 20th, 1937, the position of vice president

Pan v. State Personnel Board

180 Cal. App. 3d 351 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 1986

(Warren v. State Personnel Bd., supra.) Upon viewing the record in such a light we find sufficient evidence to support the board’s findings. Reach testified that he called plaintiff at approximately 9:25 p.m. … The board was warranted in concluding this constituted a neglect of duty. (Compare Fein v. Permanente Medical Group (1985) 38 Cal.3d 137, 144-145 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 368 , 695 P.2d 665 ].)

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.