(a)The decision shall be in writing and shall include a statement of the factual and legal basis for the decision.
(b)The statement of the factual basis for the decision may be in the language of, or by reference to, the pleadings. If the statement is no more than mere repetition or paraphrase of the relevant statute or regulation, the statement shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the
underlying facts of record that support the decision. If the factual basis for the decision includes a determination based substantially on the credibility of a witness, the statement shall identify any specific evidence of the observed demeanor, manner, or attitude of the witness that supports the determination, and on judicial review the court shall give great weight to the determination to the extent the determination identifies the observed demeanor, manner, or attitude of the witness that supports it.
(c)The statement of the factual basis for the decision shall be based exclusively on the evidence of record in the proceeding and on matters officially noticed in the proceeding. The presiding officer’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may be used in evaluating evidence.
(d)Nothing in this section limits the information that may be contained in the
decision, including a summary of evidence relied on.
(e)A penalty may not be based on a guideline, criterion, bulletin, manual, instruction, order, standard of general application or other rule subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) unless it has been adopted as a regulation pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case:
Cate v. State Pers. Bd., 204 Cal. App. 4th 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
Cate v. State Pers. Bd., 204 Cal. App. 4th 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “50 provides a specific method for court review of the administrative agency’s determination of credibility: “If the factual basis for [an administrative agency’s decision] includes a determination based substantially on the credibility of a witness, the statement [of the factual…”
San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. v. Comm'n on Prof'l Competence, 35 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 741 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “) An agency decision as to witness credibility has certain requirements under the APA, specifically, Government Code section 11425.50. “If the factual basis for [an administrative agency’s] decision includes a determination based substantially on the credibility of a witness,…”
Kifle-Thompson v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 208 Cal. App. 4th 518 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “(Gov. Code, § 11425.50, subds. (a), (c).) Although these findings include restatements of the charges they sustain, an agency’s statement of factual basis “may be in the language of, or by reference to, the [accusation].”
Fukuda v. City of Angels, 977 P.2d 693 (Cal. 1999).
“11 This subdivision provides in relevant part: “If the factual basis for the decision includes a determination based substantially on the credibility of a witness, the statement shall identify any specific evidence of the observed demeanor, manner, or attitude of the witness…”
California Youth Auth. v. State Pers. Bd., 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
“We requested supplemental briefing on the potential applicability of a statute not cited by the parties—Government Code section 11425.50, which requires a reviewing court to give great weight to certain credibility determinations in administrative adjudications.”
Patterson Flying Serv. v. Dep't of Pesticide Reg., 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 290 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
“” (Gov. Code, § 11425.50, subd. (b).) The hearing officer referred to Ruiz’s testimony as “credible,” without identifying any evidence of demeanor, manner, or attitude supporting that conclusion.”
Mason v. Off. of Admin. Hearings, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
“)” 40 The Fukuda court also noted that “Government Code section 11425.50, subdivision (b), directs trial courts to give ‘great weight’ to credibility determinations of state agency hearing officers, even when the trial court conducts independent judgment review under section…”
Rodriguez v. City of Santa Cruz, 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 844 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
“) Nor is the ALJ’s credibility determination entitled deference under *1454 Government Code section 11425.50, subdivision (b), which requires trial courts to accord “great weight” to an agency’s credibility determination “to the extent the determination identifies the observed…”
Vinson v. Snyder, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 44 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).
“As will be explained below, we have determined that a hearing officer is entitled to rely on his or her experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge in evaluating evidence proffered by the parties and to make reasonable deductions based on this evidence.”
Khoshaba v. California Dep't of Soc. Servs. CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “2 [“Government Code section 11425.50, subdivision (b) … requires trial courts to accord ‘great weight’ to an agency’s credibility determination ‘to the extent the determination identifies the observed demeanor, manner, or attitude supporting [its] conclusion’ ”]; California…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.