average standard in California

2017(Jefferson, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 400 .) The insurers sought to apply the average clause, which allowed them to proportionately reduce their coverage of fire damage to a hotel if the hotel owner had not purchased a policy insuring the building to at least 70 percent of its actual cash value. 14 (Jefferson, at p. 400.) The insurers contended “actual cash value,” as used in the “average clause” of the policy, did not mean fair market value, but meant the replacement cost of the building less depreciation.

2017The insurers sought to apply the average clause, which allowed them to proportionately reduce their coverage of fire damage to a hotel if the hotel owner had not purchased a policy insuring the building to at least 70 percent of its actual cash value.14 (Jefferson, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 400 .) They contended “actual cash value,” as used in the “average clause” of the policy, did not mean fair market value, but meant the replacement cost of the building less depreciation.

2013(See Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1024 .) If a financial interest in the outcome of a case would offer a possible temptation to an average hearing officer, then due process requires disqualification.

2007(See also Asian Pacific American Legal Center et al., Reinforcing the Seams: Guaranteeing the Promise of California's Landmark Anti-Sweatshop Law, An Evaluation of Assembly Bill 633 Six Years Later (Sept. 2005) p. 2 [average claim for overtime and minimum wage violations submitted to DLSE ranged from $5,000-$7,000, and settlement ranged from $400-$1,600].) Indeed, the Court of Appeal in Bell, supra. 115 Cal.App.4th 715 , 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 544 , rejected the argument that even an award as large as $37,000 would be "ample incentive" for an individual lawsuit for overtime pay, and would obviate the n

2007(See also Asian Pacific American Legal Center et al., Reinforcing the Seams: Guaranteeing the Promise of California's Landmark Anti-Sweatshop Law, An Evaluation of Assembly Bill 633 Six Years Later (Sept. 2005) p. 2 [average claim for overtime and minimum wage violations submitted to DLSE ranged from $5,000-$7,000, and settlement ranged from $400-$1,600].) Indeed, the Court of Appeal in Bell, supra. 115 Cal.App.4th 715 , 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 544 , rejected the argument that even an award as large as $37,000 would be "ample incentive" for an individual lawsuit for overtime pay, and would obviate the n

1997Therefore, if that pay were to be included in “compensation eamable,” not all employees in a class could be said to receive the same rate of pay and section 31461 provided that “compensation eamable” was to be based on “ ‘the average number of days ordinarily worked by persons in the same grade or class of positions . . . and at the same rate of pay. . . .’” (Guelfi, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 304 , italics added.) Similar reasoning led the court to conclude that overtime pay was not “compensation eamable.” (Id. at p. 305.) 15 The court concluded that the Legislature’s reference to “days” ord

1984Guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Carson Mobilehome Park Owners’ Assn. v. City of Carson, supra, 35 Cal.3d 184, 191-196 , we conclude the delay inherent in the rent adjustment procedures of this ordinance is not substantially greater than is practically necessary and, thus, is reasonable and constitutionally permissible.

1974However, by dividing the “total actual cost of housing and utilities” (Reg. 44-115.82; italics added), there is no arbitrary or constructive “presumption” of income of the type alluded to in Lewis v. Martin (1970) 397 U.S. 552 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 561 , 90 S.Ct. 1282 ] or King v. Smith (1968) 392 U.S. 309 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 , 88 S.Ct. 2128 ].

1974However, by dividing the “total actual cost of housing and utilities” (Reg. 44-115.82; italics added), there is no arbitrary or constructive “presumption” of income of the type alluded to in Lewis v. Martin (1970) 397 U.S. 552 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 561 , 90 S.Ct. 1282 ] or King v. Smith (1968) 392 U.S. 309 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 , 88 S.Ct. 2128 ].

1974However, by dividing the “total actual cost of housing and utilities” (Reg. 44-115.82; italics added), there is no arbitrary or constructive “presumption” of income of the type alluded to in Lewis v. Martin (1970) 397 U.S. 552 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 561 , 90 S.Ct. 1282 ] or King v. Smith (1968) 392 U.S. 309 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 , 88 S.Ct. 2128 ].

1974However, by dividing the “total actual cost of housing and utilities” (Reg. 44-115.82; italics added), there is no arbitrary or constructive “presumption” of income of the type alluded to in Lewis v. Martin (1970) 397 U.S. 552 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 561 , 90 S.Ct. 1282 ] or King v. Smith (1968) 392 U.S. 309 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 , 88 S.Ct. 2128 ].