24 California opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 19 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bussard v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2025(See § 14112, subd. (a); Petricka, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 1348 .) And it is true DMV hearing officers are empowered to issue subpoenas after a hearing has 17 commenced and to continue the proceedings pending compliance. (§ 14104.5, subd. (a); see, e.g., Bussard v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 858, 862, 865 (Bussard).) But this does not mean there are no deadlines, and no due diligence is required at all when seeking the production of documents for use at an APS hearing. 2025(See § 14112, subd. (a); Petricka, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 1348 .) And it is true DMV hearing officers are empowered to issue subpoenas after a hearing has 17 commenced and to continue the proceedings pending compliance. (§ 14104.5, subd. (a); see, e.g., Bussard v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 858, 862, 865 (Bussard).) But this does not mean there are no deadlines, and no due diligence is required at all when seeking the production of documents for use at an APS hearing. | 4 | 5 |
Petrus v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2024(See Petrus v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1240, 1244 [“section 11524 provides that a continuance should be granted for good cause shown”]; Bussard v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 858 , 865–864 (Bussard) [continuance of APS hearing may be granted in the discretion of the hearing officer upon a showing of good cause].) Indeed, the superior court’s February 2020 ruling repeatedly cited subdivision (b) of section 11524 as the source of the good cause requirement. 2024(Cf. Petrus, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1244 [the due process right to present a defense was violated when discovery was received late and a continuance was denied by the APS hearing officer].) Accordingly, Drivers have demonstrated the requisite miscarriage of justice and reversal is appropriate. | 4 | 4 |
Lake v. Reedgreen2 sentences2026(Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 455 (Lake).) It follows that the DMV must immediately suspend the driver’s license of a motorist who is driving with a BAC of 0.08 percent or more. (§ 13353.2, subd. (a)(1); Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1207 (Coffey).) Motorists have a right to request an APS hearing before the suspension of their driving privilege occurs, which is separate from the DMV’s automatic internal review, and the hearing is usually held before an AHO. 2026(Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 455 (Lake).) It follows that the DMV must immediately suspend the driver’s license of a motorist who is driving with a BAC of 0.08 percent or more. (§ 13353.2, subd. (a)(1); Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1207 (Coffey).) Motorists have a right to request an APS hearing before the suspension of their driving privilege occurs, which is separate from the DMV’s automatic internal review, and the hearing is usually held before an AHO. | 3 | 6 |
Howitt v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2026Therefore, when an AHO in an APS hearing introduces and admits “the documents that law enforcement duly forward[] to the DMV, which are routinely admitted into evidence at APS hearings, the [AHO] is merely collecting and developing evidence, not advocating for the DMV.”8 (Romane, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1018.) Because that is what the 8 Urias argues that CDLA rejected this argument and points to the following passage: “Due process protections are not dispensed with simply because the ‘DMV hearing officer typically introduces two or three official documents into evidence and decides a limi 2026Therefore, when an AHO in an APS hearing introduces and admits “the documents that law enforcement duly forward[] to the DMV, which are routinely admitted into evidence at APS hearings, the [AHO] is merely collecting and developing evidence, not advocating for the DMV.”8 (Romane, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1018.) Because that is what the 8 Urias argues that CDLA rejected this argument and points to the following passage: “Due process protections are not dispensed with simply because the ‘DMV hearing officer typically introduces two or three official documents into evidence and decides a limi | 2 | 4 |
Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hillsgreen2 sentences2026Therefore, when an AHO in an APS hearing introduces and admits “the documents that law enforcement duly forward[] to the DMV, which are routinely admitted into evidence at APS hearings, the [AHO] is merely collecting and developing evidence, not advocating for the DMV.”8 (Romane, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1018.) Because that is what the 8 Urias argues that CDLA rejected this argument and points to the following passage: “Due process protections are not dispensed with simply because the ‘DMV hearing officer typically introduces two or three official documents into evidence and decides a limi 2026Therefore, when an AHO in an APS hearing introduces and admits “the documents that law enforcement duly forward[] to the DMV, which are routinely admitted into evidence at APS hearings, the [AHO] is merely collecting and developing evidence, not advocating for the DMV.”8 (Romane, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1018.) Because that is what the 8 Urias argues that CDLA rejected this argument and points to the following passage: “Due process protections are not dispensed with simply because the ‘DMV hearing officer typically introduces two or three official documents into evidence and decides a limi | 2 | 3 |
Freeman v. Sullivantgreen2 sentences2024(Ibid.; see also Freeman v. Sullivant, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 527 [noting that “an abuse of discretion results in reversible error only when the denial of a continuance results in the denial of a fair hearing, or otherwise prejudices a party”]; Cooper v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d at p. 944 , italics added [noting that “there is no absolute right to a continuance unless the refusal thereof would be an abuse of discretion”].) Consequently, Drivers’ writ petitions should be granted, and the DMV directed to hold a new APS hearing for each Driver. 2024(Ibid.; see also Freeman v. Sullivant, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 527 [noting that “an abuse of discretion results in reversible error only when the denial of a continuance results in the denial of a fair hearing, or otherwise prejudices a party”]; Cooper v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d at p. 944 , italics added [noting that “there is no absolute right to a continuance unless the refusal thereof would be an abuse of discretion”].) Consequently, Drivers’ writ petitions should be granted, and the DMV directed to hold a new APS hearing for each Driver. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Investco Mgmt. & Dev. LLCgreen2 sentences2024(Bussard, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 858 ; see also People v. Investco Management & Development LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 443 , 456–457.) Therefore, we independently review whether the APS hearing officer’s decision to deny appellants’ continuances was within the scope of his or her discretion under section 11524(b). 2024(Bussard, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 858 ; see also People v. Investco Management & Development LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 443 , 456–457.) Therefore, we independently review whether the APS hearing officer’s decision to deny appellants’ continuances was within the scope of his or her discretion under section 11524(b). | 2 | 2 |
Pedro v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2024(Bussard, at p. 863; see also Investco Management & Development LLC, at pp. 456–457; Pedro v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 87, 99 (Pedro).) The decision to grant or deny a continuance through section 11524 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ( Bussard, supra, at pp. 863, 865 ; Ring v. Smith (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 197 , 201–202.) There is no absolute right to a continuance, or a denial of due process, in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2024(Bussard, at p. 863; see also Investco Management & Development LLC, at pp. 456–457; Pedro v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 87, 99 (Pedro).) The decision to grant or deny a continuance through section 11524 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ( Bussard, supra, at pp. 863, 865 ; Ring v. Smith (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 197 , 201–202.) There is no absolute right to a continuance, or a denial of due process, in the absence of an abuse of discretion. | 2 | 2 |
Coffey v. Shiomotogreen2 sentences2026(Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 455 (Lake).) It follows that the DMV must immediately suspend the driver’s license of a motorist who is driving with a BAC of 0.08 percent or more. (§ 13353.2, subd. (a)(1); Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1207 (Coffey).) Motorists have a right to request an APS hearing before the suspension of their driving privilege occurs, which is separate from the DMV’s automatic internal review, and the hearing is usually held before an AHO. 2026(Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 455 (Lake).) It follows that the DMV must immediately suspend the driver’s license of a motorist who is driving with a BAC of 0.08 percent or more. (§ 13353.2, subd. (a)(1); Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1207 (Coffey).) Motorists have a right to request an APS hearing before the suspension of their driving privilege occurs, which is separate from the DMV’s automatic internal review, and the hearing is usually held before an AHO. | 1 | 4 |
Hall v. Superior Court of San Diego Countygreen2 sentences2024Instead, while he was being transported to the CHP station, 2 “California has enacted an implied consent statute providing noncriminal sanctions for an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test when arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.” (Hall v. Superior Court (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 792, 802 .) When a driver challenges the suspension of his or her driver’s license suspension based on a refusal to submit to testing, the issues to be determined at the APS hearing are “whether (1) the officer had reasonable cause to believe the individual was driving a vehicle 2024Instead, while he was being transported to the CHP station, 2 “California has enacted an implied consent statute providing noncriminal sanctions for an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test when arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.” (Hall v. Superior Court (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 792, 802 .) When a driver challenges the suspension of his or her driver’s license suspension based on a refusal to submit to testing, the issues to be determined at the APS hearing are “whether (1) the officer had reasonable cause to believe the individual was driving a vehicle | 1 | 3 |
Rondon v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences2018(See, e.g., Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 1 , 10, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 585 , 145 P.3d 462 ["Procedural fairness does not mandate the dissolution of unitary agencies, but it does require some internal separation between advocates and decision makers to preserve neutrality"]; Howitt v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1575 , 1585, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 196 [in an employment appeal involving a deputy sheriff, combining advocacy and decision-making roles "is inconsistent with true objectivity, a constitutionally necessary characteristic o 2018(See, e.g., Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 1 , 10, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 585 , 145 P.3d 462 ["Procedural fairness does not mandate the dissolution of unitary agencies, but it does require some internal separation between advocates and decision makers to preserve neutrality"]; Howitt v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1575 , 1585, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 196 [in an employment appeal involving a deputy sheriff, combining advocacy and decision-making roles "is inconsistent with true objectivity, a constitutionally necessary characteristic o | 1 | 2 |
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences2018(See, e.g., Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 1 , 10, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 585 , 145 P.3d 462 ["Procedural fairness does not mandate the dissolution of unitary agencies, but it does require some internal separation between advocates and decision makers to preserve neutrality"]; Howitt v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1575 , 1585, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 196 [in an employment appeal involving a deputy sheriff, combining advocacy and decision-making roles "is inconsistent with true objectivity, a constitutionally necessary characteristic o 2018(See, e.g., Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 1 , 10, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 585 , 145 P.3d 462 ["Procedural fairness does not mandate the dissolution of unitary agencies, but it does require some internal separation between advocates and decision makers to preserve neutrality"]; Howitt v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1575 , 1585, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 196 [in an employment appeal involving a deputy sheriff, combining advocacy and decision-making roles "is inconsistent with true objectivity, a constitutionally necessary characteristic o | 1 | 2 |
| Manriquez v. Gourleygreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hattgreen2 sentences2026(See People v. Hatt (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 321, 326 [“A case is not authority for a proposition not considered. [Citation.]”].) As noted above, although Officer Corini’s report characterized Beale’s bicycle as a “motorized” bicycle, the APS hearing officer ultimately treated it as an electric bicycle, as did the trial court. 2026(See People v. Hatt (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 321, 326 [“A case is not authority for a proposition not considered. [Citation.]”].) As noted above, although Officer Corini’s report characterized Beale’s bicycle as a “motorized” bicycle, the APS hearing officer ultimately treated it as an electric bicycle, as did the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
| Cal. Dui Lawyers Ass'n v. Cal. Dep't of Motor Vehiclesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Benach v. County of Los Angelesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Withrow v. Larkingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Petricka v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2025(See § 14112, subd. (a); Petricka, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 1348 .) And it is true DMV hearing officers are empowered to issue subpoenas after a hearing has 17 commenced and to continue the proceedings pending compliance. (§ 14104.5, subd. (a); see, e.g., Bussard v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 858, 862, 865 (Bussard).) But this does not mean there are no deadlines, and no due diligence is required at all when seeking the production of documents for use at an APS hearing. 2025(See § 14112, subd. (a); Petricka, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 1348 .) And it is true DMV hearing officers are empowered to issue subpoenas after a hearing has 17 commenced and to continue the proceedings pending compliance. (§ 14104.5, subd. (a); see, e.g., Bussard v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 858, 862, 865 (Bussard).) But this does not mean there are no deadlines, and no due diligence is required at all when seeking the production of documents for use at an APS hearing. | 3 | 2025–2025 |
Monaghan v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2014(Monaghan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1621, 1626 .) Smith had the right to obtain the names of witnesses the DMV intended to call during the APS hearing (Gov. 2014(Monaghan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1621, 1626 .) Smith had the right to obtain the names of witnesses the DMV intended to call during the APS hearing (Gov. | 3 | 2014–2025 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2025Romane timely requested a hearing. 2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 . 4 The APS hearing began on December 19, 2022 before Driver Safety Hearing Officer Trena Leota. 2025Romane timely requested a hearing. 2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 . 4 The APS hearing began on December 19, 2022 before Driver Safety Hearing Officer Trena Leota. | 3 | 2013–2025 |
MacDonald v. Gutierrez
green
2 sentences2025Code, § 11513, subd. (c).) The Supreme Court has long held that this statutory scheme allows a hearing officer to consider an arresting officer’s sworn statement (the DS 367 form) as well as an unsworn police report from an arresting or nonarresting officer at an APS hearing. ( Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 461–462; MacDonald v. Gutierrez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 150 , 152–153 (MacDonald).) As the Supreme Court explained in Lake, the relevant statutory provisions contemplate that a hearing officer may consider these reports because, in the automatic internal review, the DMV is required to evaluate t 2025Code, § 11513, subd. (c).) The Supreme Court has long held that this statutory scheme allows a hearing officer to consider an arresting officer’s sworn statement (the DS 367 form) as well as an unsworn police report from an arresting or nonarresting officer at an APS hearing. ( Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 461–462; MacDonald v. Gutierrez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 150 , 152–153 (MacDonald).) As the Supreme Court explained in Lake, the relevant statutory provisions contemplate that a hearing officer may consider these reports because, in the automatic internal review, the DMV is required to evaluate t | 3 | 2024–2025 |
Miyamoto v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2025(See Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 451–452; Gerwig v. Gordon (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 59 , 65.) Indeed, the DMV’s characterization of the sworn DS 367 report and the arrest report as routine documents appears fair in light of the sheer number of published cases where such documents were admitted into evidence at an APS hearing.9 9 See, e.g., Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th at page 453 ; MacDonald, supra, 32 Cal.4th at page 154 ; Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1205 ; Evans v. Gordon (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 1094 , 1098–1099; Murphey v. Shiomoto (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1052 , 1058–1060; Lane v. Val 2025(See Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 451–452; Gerwig v. Gordon (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 59 , 65.) Indeed, the DMV’s characterization of the sworn DS 367 report and the arrest report as routine documents appears fair in light of the sheer number of published cases where such documents were admitted into evidence at an APS hearing.9 9 See, e.g., Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th at page 453 ; MacDonald, supra, 32 Cal.4th at page 154 ; Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1205 ; Evans v. Gordon (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 1094 , 1098–1099; Murphey v. Shiomoto (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1052 , 1058–1060; Lane v. Val | 2 | 2014–2025 |
Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education
green
2 sentences2025Due process protections are not dispensed with simply because the ‘DMV hearing officer typically introduces two or three official documents into evidence and decides a limited number of issues.’ Rather, ‘whenever “due process requires a hearing, the adjudicator must be impartial.” ’ (Today’s Fresh Start, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 212 .)” (DUI Lawyers, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 532.) We read this passage to say, assuming a hearing officer actually acts as both an advocate and an adjudicator in an APS hearing, the duality is intolerable even if they only advocate a little. 2025Our interpretation is reinforced by the fact that, within the same section of the opinion, the court recognized that “the same individual in an administrative agency may be tasked with ‘developing the facts and rendering a final decision.’ ” (DUI Lawyers, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 532, fn. 5, quoting Today’s Fresh Start, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 220 ; see also Kazelka, supra, 109 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1255–1256.) Finally, Romane seems to suggest that because the written policy (the DSM) and the statute found unconstitutional in DUI Lawyers were not amended by the time of his APS hearing—and/or b | 2 | 2022–2025 |
Cooper v. Board of Medical Examiners
green
2 sentences2024(Ibid.; see also Freeman v. Sullivant, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 527 [noting that “an abuse of discretion results in reversible error only when the denial of a continuance results in the denial of a fair hearing, or otherwise prejudices a party”]; Cooper v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d at p. 944 , italics added [noting that “there is no absolute right to a continuance unless the refusal thereof would be an abuse of discretion”].) Consequently, Drivers’ writ petitions should be granted, and the DMV directed to hold a new APS hearing for each Driver. 2024(Ibid.; see also Freeman v. Sullivant, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 527 [noting that “an abuse of discretion results in reversible error only when the denial of a continuance results in the denial of a fair hearing, or otherwise prejudices a party”]; Cooper v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d at p. 944 , italics added [noting that “there is no absolute right to a continuance unless the refusal thereof would be an abuse of discretion”].) Consequently, Drivers’ writ petitions should be granted, and the DMV directed to hold a new APS hearing for each Driver. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Nick v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2024Code, § 13353.2, subd. (e); Nick v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1416 ), and Penal Code section 1050, subdivision (a) requires that criminal trials be set “without regard to the pendency” of any civil matter. 2024Code, § 13353.2, subd. (e); Nick v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1416 ), and Penal Code section 1050, subdivision (a) requires that criminal trials be set “without regard to the pendency” of any civil matter. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Taylor v. State Personnel Board
green
2 sentences2024(See Taylor v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 502 .) Consequently, it is well established that administrative mandate is used to obtain judicial review of a license suspension order. 2024(See Taylor v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 502 .) Consequently, it is well established that administrative mandate is used to obtain judicial review of a license suspension order. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Brown v. Valverde
green
2 sentences2024(Id., §§ 13353.2, subd. (c); 13558, subd. (b).)” ( Brown, supra, at pp. 1536–1537.) At the APS hearing, the hearing officer determines whether three facts have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence—specifically, did the arresting officer have reasonable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence or with a prohibited BAC; was the driver arrested; and did the person drive with a prohibited BAC. 2024(Id., §§ 13353.2, subd. (c); 13558, subd. (b).)” ( Brown, supra, at pp. 1536–1537.) At the APS hearing, the hearing officer determines whether three facts have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence—specifically, did the arresting officer have reasonable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence or with a prohibited BAC; was the driver arrested; and did the person drive with a prohibited BAC. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Ring v. Smith
green
2 sentences2024(Bussard, at p. 863; see also Investco Management & Development LLC, at pp. 456–457; Pedro v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 87, 99 (Pedro).) The decision to grant or deny a continuance through section 11524 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ( Bussard, supra, at pp. 863, 865 ; Ring v. Smith (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 197 , 201–202.) There is no absolute right to a continuance, or a denial of due process, in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2024(Bussard, at p. 863; see also Investco Management & Development LLC, at pp. 456–457; Pedro v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 87, 99 (Pedro).) The decision to grant or deny a continuance through section 11524 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ( Bussard, supra, at pp. 863, 865 ; Ring v. Smith (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 197 , 201–202.) There is no absolute right to a continuance, or a denial of due process, in the absence of an abuse of discretion. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Spanish Speaking Citizens' Foundation, Inc. v. Low
green
2 sentences2023(Gann v. Acosta (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 347 , 354; Talley v. County of Fresno (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1060 , 1070; Spanish Speaking Citizens’ Foundation, Inc. v. Low (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1214 .) III. 2023(Gann v. Acosta (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 347 , 354; Talley v. County of Fresno (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1060 , 1070; Spanish Speaking Citizens’ Foundation, Inc. v. Low (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1214 .) III. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Beltran
green
2 sentences2022Based on information about Isenberg’s drinking that evening and her weight and sex, Ruvalcaba performed calculations for a retrograde 3 In People v. Beltran (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 235 , the First District referred to the circumstances before it as “a classic example of the well-recognized defense in DUI cases known as the ‘rising blood-alcohol’ defense. 2022Based on information about Isenberg’s drinking that evening and her weight and sex, Ruvalcaba performed calculations for a retrograde 3 In People v. Beltran (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 235 , the First District referred to the circumstances before it as “a classic example of the well-recognized defense in DUI cases known as the ‘rising blood-alcohol’ defense. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Coshow v. City of Escondido
green
2 sentences2018Illegal expenditures or waste Case law has made clear that "waste" does not encompass discretionary governmental action. "[A] taxpayer is not entitled to injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a where the real issue is a disagreement with the manner in which government has chosen to address a problem." ( Coshow, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 714 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 19 .) Thus, "the *1259 term 'waste' as used in section 526a means something more than an alleged mistake by public officials in matters involving the exercise of judgment or wide discretion." ( Sundance v. Municipal 2018Illegal expenditures or waste Case law has made clear that "waste" does not encompass discretionary governmental action. "[A] taxpayer is not entitled to injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a where the real issue is a disagreement with the manner in which government has chosen to address a problem." ( Coshow, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 714 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 19 .) Thus, "the *1259 term 'waste' as used in section 526a means something more than an alleged mistake by public officials in matters involving the exercise of judgment or wide discretion." ( Sundance v. Municipal | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Cinquegrani v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2018"A driver's license cannot be suspended without due process of law." ( Cinquegrani v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 741 , 750, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 816 ; see also Petrus, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1244 , 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 686 ; see also Nightlife Partners v. City of Beverly Hills (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 81 , 90, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 234 ( Nightlife Partners ) ["The protections of procedural due process apply to administrative proceedings ...; the question is simply what process is due in a given circumstance."].) " 'The essence of due process is the requirement that "a person in jeo 2018"A driver's license cannot be suspended without due process of law." ( Cinquegrani v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 741 , 750, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 816 ; see also Petrus, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1244 , 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 686 ; see also Nightlife Partners v. City of Beverly Hills (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 81 , 90, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 234 ( Nightlife Partners ) ["The protections of procedural due process apply to administrative proceedings ...; the question is simply what process is due in a given circumstance."].) " 'The essence of due process is the requirement that "a person in jeo | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Sundance v. Municipal Court
green
2 sentences2018Illegal expenditures or waste Case law has made clear that "waste" does not encompass discretionary governmental action. "[A] taxpayer is not entitled to injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a where the real issue is a disagreement with the manner in which government has chosen to address a problem." ( Coshow, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 714 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 19 .) Thus, "the *1259 term 'waste' as used in section 526a means something more than an alleged mistake by public officials in matters involving the exercise of judgment or wide discretion." ( Sundance v. Municipal 2018Illegal expenditures or waste Case law has made clear that "waste" does not encompass discretionary governmental action. "[A] taxpayer is not entitled to injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a where the real issue is a disagreement with the manner in which government has chosen to address a problem." ( Coshow, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 714 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 19 .) Thus, "the *1259 term 'waste' as used in section 526a means something more than an alleged mistake by public officials in matters involving the exercise of judgment or wide discretion." ( Sundance v. Municipal | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Mueller v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2026That procedure includes holding an APS hearing at the request of the licensee. (§§ 13353, subd. (e); 13558.) For a first-time violation of sections 23140, 23152, and 23153, a 6 person’s refusal to submit to chemical testing under section 23612 subjects them to a driver’s license suspension “for a period of one year.” (§ 13353, subd. (a)(1).) “An essential condition to the application of Vehicle Code section 13353 is that the suspect be lawfully arrested on probable cause to believe that he was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.” (Mueller v. Department of Moto 2026That procedure includes holding an APS hearing at the request of the licensee. (§§ 13353, subd. (e); 13558.) For a first-time violation of sections 23140, 23152, and 23153, a 6 person’s refusal to submit to chemical testing under section 23612 subjects them to a driver’s license suspension “for a period of one year.” (§ 13353, subd. (a)(1).) “An essential condition to the application of Vehicle Code section 13353 is that the suspect be lawfully arrested on probable cause to believe that he was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.” (Mueller v. Department of Moto | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Jackson v. Department of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Park v. Valverde green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Hildebrand v. Department of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| ROZE v. Department of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Lee v. Valverde green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Gananian v. Zolin green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Molenda v. Department of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Gikas v. Zolin green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Lane v. Valverde green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Murphey v. Shiomoto green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Poland v. Department of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Arizona v. Fulminante green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Barber v. State Personnel Board green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Mito v. Temple Recycling Center Corp. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Landvalue 77, LLC v. Board of Trustees of California State University green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Fort Bragg Unified School District v. Colonial American Casualty & Surety Co. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People Ex Rel. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dahan green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Young v. City of Coronado green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Control Board green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| C & C Partners, Ltd. v. Department of Industrial Relations green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Burkhart v. Department of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.