Cal. Codes » Government Code / TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA / DIVISION 3. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT / PART 1. STATE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES / CHAPTER 5. Administrative Adjudication: Formal Hearing
California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 11517 (2026)

Administrative Adjudication: Formal Hearing

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)A contested case may be originally heard by the agency itself and subdivision (b) shall apply. Alternatively, at the discretion of the agency, an administrative law judge may originally hear the case alone and subdivision (c) shall apply.

(b)If a contested case is originally heard before an agency itself, all of the following provisions apply:

(1)An administrative law judge shall be present during the consideration of the case and, if requested, shall assist and advise the agency in the conduct of the hearing.

(2)No member of the agency who did not hear the evidence shall vote on the decision.

(3)The agency shall issue its decision within 100 days of submission of the case.

(c)(1)If a contested case is originally heard by an administrative law judge alone, he or she shall prepare within 30 days after the case is submitted to him or her a proposed decision in a form that may be adopted by the agency as the final decision in the case. Failure of the administrative law judge to deliver a proposed decision within the time required does not prejudice the rights of the agency in the case. Thirty days after the receipt by the agency of the proposed decision, a copy of the proposed decision shall be filed by the agency as a public record and a copy shall be served by the agency on each party and his or her attorney. The filing and service is not an adoption of a proposed decision by the agency.

(2)Within 100 days of receipt by the agency of the administrative law judge’s proposed decision, the agency may act as prescribed in subparagraphs (A) to (E), inclusive. If the agency fails to act as prescribed in subparagraphs (A) to (E), inclusive, within 100 days of receipt of the proposed decision, the proposed decision shall be deemed adopted by the agency. The agency may do any of the following:

(A)Adopt the proposed decision in its entirety.

(B)Reduce or otherwise mitigate the proposed penalty and adopt the balance of the proposed decision.

(C)Make technical or other minor changes in the proposed decision and adopt it as the decision. Action by the agency under this paragraph is limited to a clarifying change or a change of a similar nature that does not affect the factual or legal basis of the proposed decision.

(D)Reject the proposed decision and refer the case to the same administrative law judge if reasonably available, otherwise to another administrative law judge, to take additional evidence. If the case is referred to an administrative law judge pursuant to this subparagraph, he or she shall prepare a revised proposed decision, as provided in paragraph (1), based upon the additional evidence and the transcript and other papers that are part of the record of the prior hearing. A copy of the revised proposed decision shall be furnished to each party and his or her attorney as prescribed in this subdivision.

(E)Reject the proposed decision, and decide the case upon the record, including the transcript, or upon an agreed statement of the parties, with or without taking additional evidence. By stipulation of the parties, the agency may decide the case upon the record without including the transcript. If the agency acts pursuant to this subparagraph, all of the following provisions apply:

(i)A copy of the record shall be made available to the parties. The agency may require payment of fees covering direct costs of making the copy.

(ii)The agency itself shall not decide any case provided for in this subdivision without affording the parties the opportunity to present either oral or written argument before the agency itself. If additional oral evidence is introduced before the agency itself, no agency member may vote unless the member heard the additional oral evidence.

(iii)The authority of the agency itself to decide the case under this subdivision includes authority to decide some but not all issues in the case.

(iv)If the agency elects to proceed under this subparagraph, the agency shall issue its final decision not later than 100 days after rejection of the proposed decision. If the agency elects to proceed under this subparagraph, and has ordered a transcript of the proceedings before the administrative law judge, the agency shall issue its final decision not later than 100 days after receipt of the transcript. If the agency finds that a further delay is required by special circumstance, it shall issue an order delaying the decision for no more than 30 days and specifying the reasons therefor. The order shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 11523.

(d)The decision of the agency shall be filed immediately by the agency as a public record and a copy shall be served by the agency on each party and his or her attorney.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case: Smith v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Comm'n, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Comm'n, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996). · cites it 6× “(Gov. Code, § 11517, subd. (c).) After additional briefing, the commission issued its decision in favor of Randall and Phillips.”
Cooper v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 217 P.2d 630 (Cal. 1950). · cites it 6× “(Gov. Code, § 11517 (b).) That is not this ease.”
AIDS Healthcare Found. v. State Dep't of Health Care Servs., 241 Cal. App. 4th 1327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “” (Gov. Code, § 11517, subd. (a), italics added.”
Kifle-Thompson v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 208 Cal. App. 4th 518 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “” (Gov. Code, § 11517, subd. (c)(2)(E).) The ALJ’s order of dismissal was a proposed order, and one the Board was entitled by statute to “undo.”
Alford v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 79 Cal. App. 4th 560 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 11× “We hold that nothing in Government Code former section 11517 barred an agency which elects to “decide the case” pursuant to former subdivision (c) of that statute from issuing a decision which adopts all of an administrative law judge’s “proposed decision” (Gov. Code, § 11517,…”
Karin White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2012). “at 519; see also Cal. Gov.Code § 11517. Nor *930 did the City Manager have unbridled discretion in making his decision; the decision was based upon the record created in the arbitration proceedings, and was constrained by the terms of the MOU and applicable state law.”
California Radioactive Materials Mgmt. Forum v. Dep't of Health Servs., 15 Cal. App. 4th 841 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Code, § 11513); 30 days after the case is submitted the ALJ must prepare and serve a proposed decision that the administrative agency may adopt as the decision in the case (Gov. Code, § 11517); and the administrative agency may adopt the proposed decision in its entirety or…”
Hohreiter v. Garrison, 184 P.2d 323 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947). · cites it 2× “(Gov. Code, § 11517.) This leaves for consideration the most important contention of appellant, namely, that he was deprived of due process of law because the commissioner adopted the findings and proposed decision of the hearing officer, without reading or hearing the evidence…”
Imen v. Glassford, 201 Cal. App. 3d 898 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Code, § 11500, subds. (f)(1)(2)(3) and (4)).”
Petropoulos v. Dep't of Real Est., 142 Cal. App. 4th 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “(Gov.Code, § 11517, subd. (c)(2)(E).) [5] According to the police report, Petropoulos was 6 feet 1 inch tall and weighed 230 pounds.”
Lindros v. Governing Bd. of the Torrance Unified Sch. Dist., 510 P.2d 361 (Cal. 1973). · cites it 4× “As the Board concedes, under section 13443, subdivision (c), the hearing officer conducts a hearing and prepared a proposed decision; based on the record of this hearing and the "proposed decision" the Board then makes its determination; under the Government Code the Board can…”
State of California v. Superior Court, 150 Cal. App. 3d 848 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). “(Gov. Code, § 11517; see Bus. & Prof. Code, § 10175; Rylander v.”
Show all 69 citing cases →
Cal. Government Code § 11517(a): 1 case
Hohreiter v. Garrison, 184 P.2d 323 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947). “(Gov. Code, § 11517.) This leaves for consideration the most important contention of appellant, namely, that he was deprived of due process of law because the commissioner adopted the findings and proposed decision of the hearing officer, without reading or hearing the evidence…”
Cal. Government Code § 11517(b): 6 cases
Cooper v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 217 P.2d 630 (Cal. 1950). “(Gov. Code, § 11517 (b).) That is not this ease.”
Dami v. Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 176 Cal. App. 2d 144 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959).
Orrin W. Fox Co. v. New Motor Veh. Bd., 440 F. Supp. 436 (C.D. Cal. 1977).
Feist v. Rowe, 3 Cal. App. 3d 404 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970).
Leeds v. Gray, 242 P.2d 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952).
Cal. Government Code § 11517(c): 5 cases
Cooper v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 217 P.2d 630 (Cal. 1950). “(Gov. Code, § 11517 (b).) That is not this ease.”
Orrin W. Fox Co. v. New Motor Veh. Bd., 440 F. Supp. 436 (C.D. Cal. 1977).
Feist v. Rowe, 3 Cal. App. 3d 404 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970).
Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., 118 Cal. App. 3d 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).
Leeds v. Gray, 242 P.2d 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952).
Cal. Government Code § 11517(d): 1 case
Chrysler Corp. v. New Motor Veh. Bd., 12 Cal. App. 4th 621 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).
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.