13 Cited authorities

  1. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist

    2 Cal.4th 962 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 791 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Aubry, the plaintiff alleged the hospital district's failure to perform a mandatory duty resulted in workers receiving "less than the prevailing wage while engaged on a public work."
  2. Dicampli–Mintz v. Cnty. of Santa Clara

    55 Cal.4th 983 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 105 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In DiCampli, the California Supreme Court held that the plain language of section 915 required delivery of the claim to one of the persons designated in the statute, and rejected a statutory interpretation that allowed substantial compliance with the claim delivery requirement.
  3. Wasatch Property Management v. Degrate

    35 Cal.4th 1111 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 130 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. S112386 June 13, 2005 Appeal from the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. CA775163, Michael S. Goodman, Commissioner. Legal Aid Society of San Diego and Bernadette E. Probus for Defendant and Appellant. National Housing Law Project, Catherine Bishop; Legal Services of Northern California, R. Mona Tawatao, Erin Farley; Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, David Pallack; Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Susanne Browne; California Rural Legal Assistance and Ilene J. Jacobs

  4. Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles

    47 Cal.4th 1298 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 105 times
    Recognizing doctrine of equitable estoppel
  5. Calif. Fed. Svg. Loan v. City of L.A

    11 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 154 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1995) 11 Cal.4th 342, 344, the California Supreme Court addressed whether "interest on a judgment against a local public entity accrue[s] at the postjudgment interest rate of 10 percent per annum prescribed by section 685.010, subdivision (a),... or at the rate of 7 percent per annum, pursuant to article XV, section 1, of the California Constitution.
  6. Jpmorgan Chase Bank v. City and

    174 Cal.App.4th 1201 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 9 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 33 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 54 times
    In Parr-Richmond Industrial Corp. v. Boyd (1954) 43 Cal.2d 157 [ 272 P.2d 16] and Pacific Home v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 41 Cal.2d 844 [ 264 P.2d 539], the parties basically agreed to value but disagreed with method or property interest held.
  9. Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. Quinn

    54 Cal.2d 507 (Cal. 1960)   Cited 35 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. County of San Diego

    252 Cal.App.2d 449 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 9 times
    In El Tejon Cattle Co. like the case at bar, there was a dispute between taxpayer and the assessor over the number of cattle which taxpayer owned.
  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 for which the participating counties do not adopt

  12. Rule 8.208 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.208   Cited 4 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