Case law

Brown v. Board of Supervisors

124 Cal. 274 · California Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1899

Proc., sec. 1068; People v. Bush, 40 Cal. 344 ; Quinchard v. Board of Trustees, 113 Cal. 664 ; People v. Board of Supervisors, 122 Cal. 421 ; Frasher v. Rader, ante, p. 132.) … (Coster v. Mayor, 43 N. Y. 399 ; Smith v. Boston, 7 Cush. 254; Egerer v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 113 ; Fobes v. Rome etc. R. R. Co., 121 N. Y. 505 .)

Brown v. State Personnel Board

43 Cal. App. 2d 70 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1941

(Nilsson v. State Personnel Board, 25 Cal. App. (2d) 699, at 705 [ 78 Pac. (2d) 467 ].) … (Kelly v. State Personnel Board, stipra.)

Brown v. State Personnel Board

166 Cal. App. 3d 1151 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1985

Assn. (1937) 20 Cal.App.2d 157, 165-166 [ 67 P.2d 368 ]; see also e.g., Lux v. Haggin, supra, 69 Cal. at pp. 269-270; Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners, supra, at p. 360 relying upon Brown v. … (Slivkoff v. Board of Trustees (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 394, 401 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 920 ].)

Brown v. Board of Trustees

41 Cal. App. 100 · California Court of Appeal · May 7, 1919

The action was brought by Helena Brown, the widow of Alexander Brown, and by ten children and grandchildren of the deceased, to recover damages for the death of said Alexander .Brown, alleged to have been caused by the negligence … (Kenna v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 101 Cal. 29 , [ 35 Pac. 333 ]; Brett v. Frank & Co., 153 Cal. 272 , [ 94 Pac. 1051 ]; Mugford v. Atlantic etc. Co., 7 Cal. App. 678 , [ 95 Pac. 674 ].)

Brown v. Franchise Tax Board

197 Cal. App. 3d 300 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1987

Background Plaintiff Sandra Brown represents the class of investors who paid the challenged tax. … Plaintiff Brown sought a refund of this tax on her own behalf and on behalf of the class. Companies also sought to be excused from reporting their distributions as taxable income. The Board denied both requests.

Brown v. Board of Education of City of Pomona

103 Cal. 531 · California Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1894

No one of them—from Zottman v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 96 , 81 Am. Dec. 96 , to Barry v. Goad, 89 Cal. 215 ,—dealt with a question of pleading such as is presented in the case at bar. … Co. v. Murphy’s Flat Fluming Co., 22 Cal. 621 ; Shaver v. Bear River etc. Co., 10 Cal. 400 ; Evans v. Bailey, 66 Cal. 112 ; Miners’ Ditch Co. v. Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 543 ; 99 Am. Dec. 300 .)

Brown v. Board of Police Commissioners

58 Cal. App. 2d 473 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 1943

Brown, decreeing that such respondents issue him a permit for the conduct of a game called “Defiance.” … In Jackson v.

Brown v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

20 Cal. App. 3d 903 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1971

The Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board (hereafter WCAB) granted the petition for reconsideration. … Raischell & Cottrell, Inc. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., supra), not by resort to the Fund. We first note that the injury Brown suffered was an occupational disease. Drs.

Brown v. Board of Police Commissioners

2 Cal. App. 2d 245 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1934

“Exhibit D “Board of Police Commissioners “Executive office Police Department “City of Los Angeles “May 19, 1930. “Edward D. Brown,' 2047 Browning Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. … By the charter it is specifically provided that the conclusions of the board upon such an investigation are “final and conclusive”. (Boyd v. Pendegast, 57 Cal. App. 504 [ 207 Pac. 713 ].)

Brown v. Hanford Elementary School Board

263 Cal. App. 2d 170 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 1968

Fidler v. … Kacsur v.

People Ex Rel. Brown v. Tehama County Board of Supervisors

56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 558 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 2007

(See, e.g., City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 254-256 [227 Cal-Rptr. 899].) … In City of Sacramento v.

Brown Group Retail, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

44 Cal. App. 4th 823 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 1996

The Franchise Tax Board of the State of California (FTB) appeals from a judgment entered against it and in favor of Brown Group Retail, Inc., successor by merger to Wetherby-Kayser Shoe Company, a Missouri corporation (Brown … (Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 988, 993 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 121 ]; Automatic Canteen Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 372, 381 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 848 ].)”

J. R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

26 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1979

(See, e.g., Nishikawa Farms, Inc. v. Mahony (1977) 66 *11 Cal.App.3d 781 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; A. F. of L. v. Labor Board (1940) 308 U.S. 401 [ 84 L.Ed. 347 , 60 S.Ct. 76 ]; Boire v. … F. of L. v. Labor Board (1940) supra, 308 U.S. 401 ; Boire v. Greyhound Corp. (1964) supra, 376 U.S. 473 ; but cf. Leedom v.

Wilson v. San Francisco Municipal Railway

29 Cal. App. 3d 870 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1973

As used in [the Brown Act], ‘legislative body’ means the governing board, commission, directors or body of a local agency, or any board or commission thereof, and shall include any board, commission, committee, or other body … No. 42 v.

People v. Howard

23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 306 · California Supreme Court · Jan 27, 2005

(People v. Burroughs, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 833 ; see also People v. … (People v. Robertson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 166 ; People v. Hansen, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 309; People v. Phillips, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 582 ; People v. Williams, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 458, fn. 5 .)

People v. Brown

26 Cal. App. 3d 825 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 1972

The federal proceedings are reported sub nom., Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d 1166 . On this appeal, defendant raises four contentions: “I. … Mars-den, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118 , and found to be lacking in Brown v. Craven, supra, 424 F.2d 1166 .

Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 569 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 1999

The substantial evidence test requires the court to begin with the presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain the board’s findings of fact. (Pescosolido v. … [Citations.]’ ” (Id. at p. 772; see also Fisher v. City of Berkeley, supra, 37 Cal.3d 644 ; Carson Mobilehome Park Owners’ Assn. v. City of Carson, supra, 35 Cal.3d 184 ; Birkenfeld v.

Bryant

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 7, 2026

v. … Board of Education].”) (cleaned up). The chilling effect is particularly concerning where the case raises issues of public importance, as Bryant’s does. See Hunter v.

Brown v. Brown

170 Cal. 1 · California Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1915

In People’s Bank v. … Code, sec. 1698; Pearsall v.

Brown v. Brown

15 Cal. 3d 838 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1976

Board of Administration (1970) 3 Cal.3d 32, 40-41 [89 Cal.Rptr. 61 , 473 P.2d 765 ]; cf. Smith v. … , supra, 41 Cal.App.3d 642 ; In re Marriage of Brown (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 188 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 510 ]; Bensing v.