§Why CasetextPricing

WILLIAMS & FICKETT v. COUNTY OF FRESNO

Respondent’s Petition for Review

13 Cited authorities

  1. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.

    2 Cal.4th 962 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 1,184 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Aubry, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th 579 at pages 587 through 588, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 703, the court, citing language from Labor Council, held the Regents were not required to pay private contractors the prevailing wage under section 1770 et seq., which applies to public works, for the construction of student and staff housing.

  2. DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara

    55 Cal.4th 983 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 171 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff failed to comply with Government Claims Act where government claim was never presented or delivered to the statutorily designated recipient

  3. Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles

    47 Cal.4th 1298 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 146 times
    Recognizing doctrine of equitable estoppel

  4. Wasatch Property Management v. Degrate

    35 Cal.4th 1111 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 166 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting a court may refer to dictionaries as sources of a word's ordinary, usual meaning

  5. California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles

    11 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 181 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Detailing amendment history

  6. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. City and County of San Francisco

    174 Cal.App.4th 1201 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 11 times
    In JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. City and County of San Francisco (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1201, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 (JPMorgan), the court relied on Lantzyin refusing to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to extend the appellant's time for filing an administrative claim for a tax refund.

  7. Stenocord Corp. v. City Etc. of San Francisco

    2 Cal.3d 984 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 39 times
    In Stenocord, the California Supreme Court held that a party may be exempted from the usual rule where "the assessment is a nullity as a matter of law because, for example, the property is tax exempt, non-existent or outside the jurisdiction, and no factual questions exist regarding the valuation of the property which, upon review by the board of equalization, might be resolved in the taxpayer's favor, thereby making further litigation unnecessary."

  8. Parr-Richmond Industrial Corp. v. Boyd

    43 Cal.2d 157 (Cal. 1954)   Cited 62 times
    Distinguishing between exhaustion requirements when claim involves agencys valuation of property rather than legality of assessment

  9. Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. Quinn

    54 Cal.2d 507 (Cal. 1960)   Cited 42 times
    In Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. Quinn (1960) 54 Cal.2d 507, 6 Cal.Rptr. 545, 354 P.2d 1 (Star-Kist), we explained that "[p]rior application to the local board of equalization has not been required... in certain cases where the facts were undisputed and the property assessed was tax-exempt [citations], outside the jurisdiction [citation], or nonexistent [citations]."

  10. El Tejon Cattle Co. v. San Diego County

    252 Cal.App.2d 449 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 11 times
    Regarding a dispute concerning the number of head of livestock to be assessed as presenting a valuation issue

  11. Section 301 - Definitions and General Provisions

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 18 § 301   Cited 4 times

    The provisions set forth in this regulation govern the construction of this subchapter. (a) "County" is the county or city and county wherein the property is located that is the subject of the proceedings under this subchapter. (b) "Assessor" is the assessor of the county. (c) "Auditor" is the auditor of the county. (d) "Board" is the board of equalization or assessment appeals board of the county or a multijurisdictional assessment appeals board. (e) "Chair" is the chair of the county board of equalization

  12. Rule 8.208 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.208   Cited 17 times

    (a)Purpose and intent The California Code of Judicial Ethics states the circumstances under which an appellate justice must disqualify himself or herself from a proceeding. The purpose of this rule is to provide justices of the Courts of Appeal with additional information to help them determine whether to disqualify themselves from a proceeding. (b)Application This rule applies in appeals in civil cases other than family, juvenile, guardianship, and conservatorship cases. (Subd (b) adopted effective