§Why CasetextPricing

PARATRANSIT v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Appellant’s Petition for Review

27 Cited authorities

  1. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 640 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

  2. People v. Frye

    21 Cal.App.4th 1483 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 163 times
    In Frye, the appellate court held that the trial court did not err in imposing a statutory minimum restitution fine of $200, despite the defendant's statement that he was unable to pay the fine, because in the absence of evidence that the defendant was ineligible for prison work assignment, the court could presume the fine would be paid out of the defendant's prison wages.

  3. Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd.

    29 Cal.3d 101 (Cal. 1981)   Cited 78 times
    Noting that "a dispute about an employer's liability for unemployment benefits affects both the claimant's and the employer's ‘fundamental vested rights' "

  4. Pasadena Unified Sch. v. Comm. on Prof. Competence

    20 Cal.3d 309 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 84 times

    Docket No. L.A. 30848. December 15, 1977. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C 153515, Norman R. Dowds, Judge. COUNSEL John H. Larson, County Counsel, and Donovan M. Main, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents. Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann Krepack and Richard D. Sommers for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. OPINION BIRD, C.J. Appellant, the Pasadena Unified School District, appeals from a superior court judgment

  5. Parrish v. Civil Service Commission

    66 Cal.2d 260 (Cal. 1967)   Cited 97 times
    Holding that the county's policy of conditioning receipt of welfare benefits upon waiver of Fourth Amendment rights was unconstitutional

  6. Lacy v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

    17 Cal.App.3d 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 68 times
    In Lacy v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.,supra, 17 Cal.App.3d 1128, a case decided approximately three months after Bixby, the court said: "In reviewing decisions granting or denying unemployment insurance benefits, the superior court exercises its independent judgment on the evidence and inquires whether the administrative agency's findings are supported by the weight of the evidence."

  7. Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

    35 Cal.3d 671 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 39 times
    In Amador, we explained the respective burdens of the parties this way: "The employer bears the overall burden of proving misconduct. [Citations.] However, once it is established that the employee has violated a reasonable order, the burden shifts to the employee to show good cause.

  8. Gibson v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

    9 Cal.3d 494 (Cal. 1973)   Cited 49 times
    In Gibson, the attorney of a claimant for unemployment insurance benefits filed her appeal three days after the expiration of the ten-day period provided by statute.

  9. Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

    36 Cal.3d 575 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 31 times

    Docket No. L.A. 31809. August 23, 1984. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C 378862, Leon Savitch, Judge. COUNSEL Rees Lloyd for Plaintiffs and Appellants. John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Thomas E. Warriner, Assistant Attorney General, Anne S. Pressman and Richard J. Magasin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. OPINION GRODIN, J. Is an employee rendered ineligible for unemployment benefits if, in

  10. Moosa v. State Personnel Board

    102 Cal.App.4th 1379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 5 times

    C038494 Filed September 23, 2002 Certified for Publication October 22, 2002 Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Butte County, No. 125210, Steven J. Howell, Judge. Reversed. Ishikawa Law Office and Brendon Ishikawa for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. California State University Office of General Counsel, Christine Helwick and Karen L. Robinson for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. ROBIE, J. The Board of Trustees of the California State University

  11. Section 1256-30 - Discharge for Misconduct -General Principles

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22 § 1256-30   Cited 8 times

    (a) Scope. This section relates to general principles for discharge for misconduct connected with the most recent work. Sections 1256-31 to 1256-43, inclusive, of these regulations, relate to specific reasons for discharge for misconduct. An individual who accepts future work but engages in conduct which causes the employer to prevent or prevents commencement of this work, has not been discharged for misconduct but the issue is raised of whether the individual has refused suitable work without good

  12. Section 1256-36 - Discharge for Misconduct -Insubordination

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22 § 1256-36   Cited 2 times

    (a) This section relates to discharge from the most recent work for misconduct due to insubordination. Section 1256-30 of these regulations sets forth general principles also applicable under this section. (b) Implicit in the agreement of hire is the concept that an employee is subject to some degree of authority exercised by the employer or the employer's representative. An employee is insubordinate if he or she intentionally disregards the employer's interest and willfully violates the standard

  13. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,834 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer