Case law

Gardstrom v. L. E. White Lumber Co.

21 Cal. App. 744 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1913

(Kramm v. Stockton Elec. Ry. Co., 3 Cal. App. 606, 609 , [ 86 Pac. 738, 739 ].) In Herbert v. Southern Pac. … Of the duty of the employer under circumstances such as appear here, the court, in Brown v. Chicago etc. R. R.

Davis v. Gray

29 Cal. App. 2d 403 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1938

(Gastineau v. Meyer, 131 Cal. App. 611, 616 [ 22 Pac. (2d) 31 ].) … Section 5.711 seems to impose that duty upon the board.

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 .)

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of Ventura

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2025

(See City of Petaluma v. … (McClelland v. Board of Supervisors (1947) 30 Cal.2d 124, 128–129.)

Cameron v. City of Richmond

42 Cal. App. 262 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1919

Orr, 100 Cal. 300 , [ 34 Pac. 779 ]; Rogers v. Schulenburg, 111 Cal. 281 , [ 43 Pac. 899 ] ; Hirshfeld v. Weill, 121 Cal. 13 , [ 53 Pac. 402 ].) … In the ease of Santa Barbara v. Rucker et al., 35 Cal.

Douglass v. Douglass

130 Cal. App. 2d 609 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 1955

(Mondine v. Sarlin, 11 Cal.2d 593, 597 [ 81 P.2d 903 ].) … (Terrell v. Key System, 69 Cal.App.2d 682, 689-690 [ 159 P.2d 704 ]; Dwelly v. McReynolds, 6 Cal.2d 128,133 [ 56 P.2d 1232 ].)

California School Employees Ass'n v. Los Angeles City Unified School District

65 Cal. App. 3d 848 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 1976

Harney, Inc. v. Contractors’ Bd. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 561, 564 [ 247 P.2d 913 ]; Klinker v. Klinker (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 687, 693 [ 283 P.2d 83 ]; see Gov. Code § 11440.) … Petitioner’s fundamental right to pursue a gainful occupation (Takahashi v.

People Ex Rel. Merrill v. Nellis

14 Cal. App. 250 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1910

The language and provisions of the advertisement and plans indicate as the real intention upon the part of the board to purchase in the open market, and in lieu of personal examination by the board at the respective places … Their authority so to do is determined in Sarver v. County of Los Angeles, 156 Cal. 188 , [ 103 Pac. 917 ]; Riverside v. Yawman-Erbe Mfg. Co., 3 Cal. App. 691 , [ 86 Pac. 900 ].

Metzenbaum v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea

234 Cal. App. 2d 62 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1965

Board of Supervisors, 31 Cal.2d 66, 74 [ 187 P.2d 686 ]), it is entitled to great respect (Christensen v. Thurber, 120 Cal.App.2d 517, 519 [ 261 P.2d 312 ]). … The board’s interpretation in favor of respondents’ contention seems, under the facts of this case, to be reasonable. Appellant relies upon decisions from other jurisdictions (Loveladies Property Owners Assn. v.

Mason v. Superior Court

121 Cal. App. 3d 876 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1981

Other cases holding that law enforcement officers must turn over seized property to the Franchise Tax Board on demand are People v. Freeny (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 20, 30 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 33 ] and Franchise *883 Tax Board v. … (Kanarek v. Davidson, supra, 85 Cal.App.3d 341, 345, fn. 4 .)

Walton v. County of Kern

39 Cal. App. 2d 32 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1940

(Morse v. Steele, 132 Cal. 456 [ 64 Pac. 690 ]; Lewis v. Fox, 122 Cal. 244 [ 54 Pac. 823 ].) … (Kirk v. Culley, 202 Cal. 501 [ 261 Pac. 994 ].) In Bank of Italy etc. Assn. v.

Shaughnessy v. Wllsona School District

29 Cal. App. 3d 742 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1972

(Homer v. Board of Trustees (1964) 61 Cal.2d 79, 83 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 389 P.2d 713 ].) … (See: Kennedy v. Board of Education (1890) 82 Cal. 483, 491 [ 22 P. 1042 ]; Titus v. Lawndale School Dist. (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 822, 831 [ 322 P.2d 56 ]; 52 Am.Jur.2d, Mandamus, § 242, pp. 568-569.)

In Re Moses

182 Cal. App. 4th 1279 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2010

V, § 8, subd. (b); Pen. Code, § 3041.2.) … (In re Ross (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1514 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 873 ].) 5 See also Biggs v. Terhune (9th Cir. 2003) 334 F.3d 910, 916-917 , and Irons v.

Young v. New Pedrara Onyx Co.

48 Cal. App. 1 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1920

(Brewster v. Sime, 42 Cal. 139 ; Thompson v. Toland, 48 Cal. 99 ; Northwestern P. C. Co. v. Atlantic P. C. … (Quincy v. Tilton, 5 Me. 277 ; .Blanchard v. Trim, 38 N. Y. 225 ; Hornberger v. Feder, 30 Misc. Rep. 121 , [ 61 N. Y. Supp. 865 ] ; Klein v. Rector, 57 Miss. 538 ; Miller v. Smith, 1 Mason, 437 , [Fed. Cas.

Coutin v. Lucas

220 Cal. App. 3d 1016 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1990

Justice as president of the board. … Although Tolman v.

People v. Wickers

24 Cal. App. 3d 12 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 1972

At this time Poland observed on the back seat of the vehicle on the passenger side two- jackets, one of brown corduroy and the other a brown leather or simulated leather jacket. … (People v. Henze, 253 Cal.App.2d 986, 988 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 545 ].)

Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court

102 Cal. App. 2d 854 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 1951

The commission and the board joined in this application for a writ of prohibition. … While the charter provisions must be complied with, considerable discretion remains with the board of supervisors with respect to similarity of work and various conditions. (Goodrich v.

Nider v. Homan

32 Cal. App. 2d 21 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1939

In California a writ of prohibition can only issue when a court, board or tribunal proposes to act in excess of its jurisdiction. (See. 1102, Code Civ. Proc.) In Croly v. … (See, also, Whitten v. California State Board, 8 Cal. (2d) 444 [ 65 Pac. (2d) 1296 , 115 A. L. R. 1]; Drummey v. State Board, 13 Cal. (2d) 75 [ 87 Pac. (2d) 848 ].)

Currieri v. City of Roseville

4 Cal. App. 3d 997 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1970

The case before us is not dissimilar from Wiles v. State Personnel Board (1942) 19 Cal.2d 344 [ 121 P.2d 673 ]. … (Wiles v. State Personnel Board, supra, 19 Cal.2d 344, 352 .)

Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. California Coastal Commission

4 Cal. App. 5th 1165 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2016

In Howitt v. … In Quintero v.