Case law

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.)

Pece v. Tama Trading Co.

22 Cal. App. 2d 219 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1937

Co. v. … (Thatch v. Livingston, 13 Cal. App. (2d) 202 [56 Pac. (2d) *223 549] ; People v. Groves, 9 Cal. App. (2d) 317, 321 [ 49 Pac. (2d) 888 , 50 Pac. (2d) 813 ] ; Leavens v.

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 ].)

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 ].

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.

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 .)

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.)

C.H.B. Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

195 Cal. App. 3d 821 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1987

Corp. v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at pp. 36-37.) … (Morton v. Superior Court (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 977, 984 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 533 ], questioned on other grounds in Sunnyvale Public Safety Officers Assn. 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 ].)

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.

Westcon Construction Corp. v. County of Sacramento

61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 89 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 2007

Assigned Risk Plan v. Garamendi (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 904 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 562 ] (CAARP) and Wilson v. … Westcon contends the claim-filing requirement is met if the circumstances are such that the claim should have been received by the proper board. Westcon cites Jamison, supra, 31 Cal.App.3d 513 , and Elias v.

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 .)

Olen Commercial Realty Corp. v. County of Orange

24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 609 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2005

(Western States Petroleum Assn, v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 579 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ].) With or without the Pike declaration, the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. … (Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 420 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 ].) Mandatory Notice of Assessment Methodology Relying on Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v.

Wicktor v. County of Los Angeles

177 Cal. App. 2d 390 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 25, 1960

Language in Wicktor v. County of Los Angeles, 141 Cal.App.2d 592 , 596 et seq. [ 297 P.2d 115 ], Nichols v. Board of Retirement, 121 Cal. App.2d 176, 180 [ 262 P.2d 862 ], and Shaw v. … (Shaw v. Board of Administration, supra, and cases there cited.)” Shaw v.

Montijo v. Western Greyhound Lines

219 Cal. App. 2d 342 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 1963

(Stockwell v. Board of Trustees, 64 Cal.App.2d 197, 204-207 [ 148 P.2d 405 ] ; Rovegno v. San Jose K. of C. Hall Assn., 108 Cal.App. 591, 595 [ 291 P. 848 ].) … J., and Brown (Gerald), J., concurred. The petitions of plaintiff and appellant and of defendant and appellant for a hearing by the Supreme Court were denied October 9, 1963.

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. Dwayne Irvine Profit

183 Cal. App. 3d 849 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1986

United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 ; Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 ; Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 ; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ; United States v. … (See also Brown v. Texas (1979) 443 U.S. 47, 52, fn. 2 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 362 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 ], People v.

People v. Smith

135 Cal. App. 4th 914 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 2005

(See People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 534 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 73 P.3d 1137 ] (Brown) [evidentiary rulings reviewed for an abuse of discretion].) Taffolla’s statements qualified as spontaneous statements. … (White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 355, fn. 8 [ 116 L.Ed.2d 848 , 112 S.Ct. 736 ]; accord, Brown, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 542 .)

People v. Carter

233 Cal. App. 2d 260 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1965

As in People v. Gish, supra, 230 Cal.App.2d 544 , the rule applied in People v. Brown, 111 Cal.App.2d 406 [ 244 P.2d 702 ], which in turn relied upon People v. … (People v. Banks, 53 Cal.2d 370 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 669 , 348 P.2d 102 ]; People v. Causey, 230 Cal.App.2d 576 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 116 ].) Order affirmed. Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Coughlin, J., concurred.