What is a Final Administrative Decision?

Useful Rulings on Final Administrative Decision

Recent Rulings on Final Administrative Decision

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

The Court has also again reviewed CCP § 1094.5 (the section invoked by Petitioners) regarding judgment on a writ. The relevant subsection is (f) which reads: (f) The court shall enter judgment either commanding respondent to set aside the order or decision, or denying the writ.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

PISMO BEACH SELF-STORAGE, L.P. V. CITY OF PISMO BEACH, ET AL.

The Court is not convinced that the referenced “conduct” in the supplemental brief is the type of activity referenced in Section 1094.5, which involves a “final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer[…]” (Section 1094.5(a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2020

FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT VS. WATTS

Proc., § 1094.5) is the appropriate means for overturning the denial of a claim for excess proceeds from a default tax sale”]; Mission Valley East, Inc. v. County of Kern (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 89, 99, fn. 6 [“[t]his is a ‘common law’ or traditional mandamus proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, not administrative mandamus under section 1094.5”].) Nevertheless, the Court must pick one or the other mode of judicial review before it can proceed with its analysis.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

SLS VENICE HOLDINGS, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Standard of Review Petitioner’s first cause of action for writ of mandate is brought pursuant to CCP sections 1094.5 “or” 1085. (Pet. ¶ 1.) “[J]udicial review via administrative mandate is available ‘only if the decision[] resulted from a 'proceeding in which by law: 1) a hearing is required to be given, 2) evidence is required to be taken, and 3) discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the agency.’

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ADRIAN QUINTERO VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

Standard of Review The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue if the Court finds a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the respondent “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b).) 233Cal.App.3d 813, 823.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

ADRIAN QUINTERO VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

Standard of Review The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue if the Courtfindsa prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the respondent "has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence." (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b).) 233Cal.App.3d813, 823.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

RESIDENTS FOR ORCUTT SENSIBLE GROWTH V. COUNTY OF SB

., § 1094.5), the court’s review of a governmental agency’s actions or decisions is generally limited to the administrative record. Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e) describes the content of the record as follows: “The record of proceedings shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following items:....” Subdivision (e) enumerates 11 categories of material that must be included in the administrative record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

NICOLE MEHRINGER VS MICHAEL MOORE, ET AL.

Standard of Review Under CCP section 1094.5(b), the pertinent issues are whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5(b.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT VS. RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF

“[D]iscovery under section 1094.5, unlike general civil discovery, cannot be used to go on a fishing expedition looking for unknown facts to support speculative theories.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BULLETTI VS. CALIFORNIA DEPT.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 authorizes review of an administrative decision when a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of contested factual issues is vested in the administrative decision-maker. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5.) Judicial review of a denial of benefits from the DOR is governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 (Hoitt v. Dept. of Rehabilitation (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 513, 521.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Petitioner Cadiz opposed the project and challenged the EIR under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5. The trial court found that the EIR certification was adequate and denied petitioner’s motion to compel deposition of Mr. Lauricella. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the EIR was inadequate in some respects. The Court of Appeal also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to depose Mr. Lauricella.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Petitioner Cadiz opposed the project and challenged the EIR under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5. The trial court found that the EIR certification was adequate and denied petitioner's motion to compel deposition of Mr. Lauricella. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the EIR was inadequate in some respects. The Court of Appeal also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to depose Mr. Lauricella.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Judge

    STEVEN M. G E V E R C E R

  • County

    Sacramento County, CA

EMILY SECOR ISMAEL VS. COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING

Standard of Review The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue if the Court finds a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the respondent “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

EMILY SECOR ISMAEL VS. COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING

Standard of Review The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue if the Court finds a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the respondent "has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence." (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

RISA SOTO VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION/CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES

She also seeks a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 commanding CalHR to grant her request for reinstatement. ANALYSIS 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

RISA SOTO VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION/CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES

She also seeks a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 commanding CalHR to grant her request for reinstatement. ANALYSIS 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

CHRISTOPHER VALENTE VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMM

Standard of Review Under CCP section 1094.5(b), the pertinent issues are whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5(b.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ALMODOVAR VS LEARY

Petitioner challenges the ALJ's decision under CCP section 1094.5 and Welfare and Institutions Code section 10962. Welfare and Institutions Code section 10962 provides for judicial review of the Department's final decision under CCP section 1094.5.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LAVANYA VAISH VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (b), the issues for review of an administrative decision are: whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NINFA GUZMAN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

The court further found that Petitioner failed to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(b) by failing to lodge the administrative record or cite to the record, and thus failed to meet her burden under CCP section 1094.5 of showing a prejudicial abuse of discretion. On May 13, 2019, Respondent served notice of the court’s ruling on Petitioner. The court entered its final judgment on June 17, 2019, and signed, filed, and served a Notice of Entry of Judgment that same day.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

JIMMY YEE VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

Standard of Review Under CCP section 1094.5(b), the pertinent issues are whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5(b); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MANUEL CARLOS LOPEZ VS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Standard of Review Under CCP section 1094.5(b), the pertinent issues are whether the respondent has proceeded without jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Although the parties raise procedural issues with respect to mandatory-directory duties versus mandatory-permissive duties, and whether the appropriate relief is under CCP § 1085 or CCP § 1094.5, because the court finds none of the statutes or regulations at issue impose a duty on Respondent to name Real Parties as dischargers in the GD Order, the court does not reach these procedural issues in ruling on this demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Although the parties raise procedural issues with respect to mandatory-directory duties versus mandatory-permissive duties, and whether the appropriate relief is under CCP § 1085 or CCP § 1094.5, because the court finds none of the statutes or regulations at issue impose a duty on Respondent to name Real Parties as dischargers in the GD Order, the court does not reach these procedural issues in ruling on this demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EVA STEPHANIE MUNOZ VS STEVE GORDON

The procedure set forth in CCP § 1094.5 is the traditional means for judicially reviewing final decisions of an administrative agency. Coombs v. Pierce, 1 Cal. App. 4th 568, 574 (1991). To the extent CCP § 1094.5 clashes with Veh. Code § 13559, “the specialized provisions of section 13559 control; if section 13559 is silent on some particular procedure, the general provisions for administrative mandamus apply.” Id. at 575.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 47     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.