Case law

Petrillo v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

197 Cal. App. 3d 798 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 1988

Our California Supreme Court stated that “[i]n Board of Regents v. … (Cansdale v. Board of Administration, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d at pp. 664-665.)

Pacific Turf Club, Inc. v. Cohn

104 Cal. App. 2d 371 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1951

and Professions Code to the California Horse Racing Board. … The submission in this case was set aside awaiting the decision by the Supreme Court in Orloff 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.

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.

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.

Widdows v. Koch

263 Cal. App. 2d 228 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 1968

(Guillory v. Godfrey, 134 Cal.App.2d 628, 632 [ 286 P.2d 474 ] ; Masoni v. Board of Trade, 119 Cal.App.2d 738, 741 [ 260 P.2d 205 ].) … In Blank v.

BODEGA BAY CONCERNED CITIZENS v. County of Sonoma

23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 2005

Guarantee Assn. v. Workers’ Comp. … Griffis 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.

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.

Sugru v. Sugru

54 Cal. App. 587 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1921

The dark brown saddle horfee being a pet of the plaintiff for which she had that affection for, incident to most humanity, she in person and at great expense at tast located the same, which when so found was poor, and had … However, the following are in point: Mallory v. Thomas, 98 Cal. 644 [ 33 Pac. 757 ] ; Lamb v Harbaugh, 105 Cal. 680 [ 39 Pac. 56 ]; Foerst v. Kelso, 131 Cal. 376 [ 63 Pac. 681 ] ; Lapique v. Ruef, 30 Cal.

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.

People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Bosio

47 Cal. App. 3d 495 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1975

As pointed out in Brown v. … Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 8 Cal.3d at page 263, footnote 8; Russian Hill Improvement Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals, 44 Cal.App.3d 158, 167 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 490 ].

People v. Patterson

151 Cal. App. 3d 252 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 1984

(In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 683 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 511 P.2d 1153 ].) … People v. Ribero, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 65; People v.

People v. Burroughs

234 Cal. App. 3d 245 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1991

(Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 724 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ].) … (Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 115 , 755 P.2d 299 ]; Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, 198 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 561 P.2d 1148 ].)

Bryson v. Bryson

62 Cal. App. 170 · California Court of Appeal · May 9, 1923

Co. v. Morey, 111 Cal. 114 [ 43 Pac. 585 ]; Seal of Gold Mining Co. v. Slater, 161 Cal. 621 [ 120 Pac. 15 ].) Isaac H. … And in the ease of Murphy v. Delmo, 95 Me. 229 [55 L. R.

Maurer v. Bernardo

118 Cal. App. 290 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1931

(Powell v. Petch, 166 Cal. 329 [ 136 Pac. 55 ]; McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 185 [95 Am. Dec. 170]; Biddel v. Brizzolara, 56 Cal. 382 ; Pierce v. Merrick, 128 Cal. 476 [ 79 Am. St. Rep. 63 , 61 Pac. 67 ]; Snyder v. … Brown, supra, ‘When the express promise is shown, the acknowledgment, if there be one, has no effect, for the law will not imply a promise in the presence of an express promise’.”

In re Denham

211 Cal. App. 4th 702 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2012

“The Board has no concerns with his parole plans at this time.” … Because we are bound by our Supreme Court’s decision (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v.