record of the administrative hearing in California

13 California opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2022 1 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Finley v. Orrgreen calctapp · 1968 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969In Walker , as here, the superior court heard the case on the record of the administrative hearing and exercised its independent judgment on the facts and made its own findings as it was required to do in this type of proceeding (Finley v. Orr, 262 Cal.App.2d 656, 666 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]). 1969In Walker , as here, the superior court heard the case on the record of the administrative hearing and exercised its independent judgment on the facts and made its own findings as it was required to do in this type of proceeding (Finley v. Orr, 262 Cal.App.2d 656, 666 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 137 ]).	2	2
People v. Jassogreen calctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015(See People v. Jasso (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1370-1371 [although defendant has no duty to present evidence, prosecutor may properly comment on a defendant's failure to present logical evidence to support defense theory]; People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 338 .) We note further that the record does not support defendant's claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct by continuing to refer to defendant's failure to produce the transcript even though the court sustained objections to the questioning.	1	1
Ocheltree v. Gourleygreen calctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c).)” (Ocheltree v. Gourley (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1017 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 77 ] (Ocheltree).) On appeal, our task ordinarily is limited to ascertaining whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings. 2008Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c).)” (Ocheltree v. Gourley (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1017 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 77 ] (Ocheltree).) On appeal, our task ordinarily is limited to ascertaining whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings.	1	1
Santos v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen calctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005(Santos v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 537, 545 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 10 ].) On appeal, we must determine whether the trial court’s ruling is supported by substantial evidence. 2005(Santos v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 537, 545 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 10 ].) On appeal, we must determine whether the trial court’s ruling is supported by substantial evidence.	1	1
Coombs v. Piercegreen calctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994(See Coombs v. Pierce (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 568, 575-576 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 249 ].) We summarize the evidence in the record of the administrative hearing. 1994(See Coombs v. Pierce (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 568, 575-576 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 249 ].) We summarize the evidence in the record of the administrative hearing.	1	1
Martin v. State Personnel Boardgreen calctapp · 1972 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981The record of the administrative hearing fails to substantiate respondent’s claim that the witnesses Reginald and Eddie were unavailable and accordingly respondent’s assertion of admissibility on this ground is without merit. 2 We agree with the view contrary to Savelli expressed in the Third District’s decision in Martin v. State Personnel Bd. (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 573, 583 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 306 ], which holds that: “Where section 11513 is . applicable, the function of hearsay as substantial evidence is delimited by the section itself. 1981The record of the administrative hearing fails to substantiate respondent’s claim that the witnesses Reginald and Eddie were unavailable and accordingly respondent’s assertion of admissibility on this ground is without merit. 2 We agree with the view contrary to Savelli expressed in the Third District’s decision in Martin v. State Personnel Bd. (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 573, 583 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 306 ], which holds that: “Where section 11513 is . applicable, the function of hearsay as substantial evidence is delimited by the section itself.	1	1
Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.green cal · 1974 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978The trial court, after exercising its independent judgment on the evidence (Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28, 32 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 805 , 520 P.2d 29 ]), entered findings and a judgment denying relief. 1978The trial court, after exercising its independent judgment on the evidence (Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28, 32 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 805 , 520 P.2d 29 ]), entered findings and a judgment denying relief.	1	1
Hohreiter v. Garrisongreen calctapp · 1947 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969(See Hohreiter v. Garrison (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 384, 401-402 [ 184 P.2d 323 ], applied to this type of proceeding in Finley v. Orr (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 656, 666 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 137 ].) The superior court’s findings included all of the facts found by. the hearing board, together with a number of more detailed findings which were requested by appellant as a foundation for some contentions which his counsel desired to urge on appeal. 1969(See Hohreiter v. Garrison (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 384, 401-402 [ 184 P.2d 323 ], applied to this type of proceeding in Finley v. Orr (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 656, 666 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 137 ].) The superior court’s findings included all of the facts found by. the hearing board, together with a number of more detailed findings which were requested by appellant as a foundation for some contentions which his counsel desired to urge on appeal.	1	1
Ferrante v. Fish & Game Commissiongreen cal · 1946 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1965–1965 2 sentences 1965(Ferrante v. Fish & Game Com., 29 Cal.2d 365, 374 [ 175 P.2d 222 ]; see Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 102 .) The record of the administrative hearing shows that 877 Tuba Agency’s plan was the initial part of a two-stage project, the second stage of which would include a Marysville Dam and a 1,000,000 acre-foot reservoir approximately 5 miles downstream from the Parks Bar damsite. 1965(Ferrante v. Fish & Game Com., 29 Cal.2d 365, 374 [ 175 P.2d 222 ]; see Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 102 .) The record of the administrative hearing shows that 877 Tuba Agency’s plan was the initial part of a two-stage project, the second stage of which would include a Marysville Dam and a 1,000,000 acre-foot reservoir approximately 5 miles downstream from the Parks Bar damsite.	1	1
Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Worksgreen cal · 1955 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1965–1965 1 sentence 1965(Ferrante v. Fish & Game Com., 29 Cal.2d 365, 374 [ 175 P.2d 222 ]; see Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 102 .) The record of the administrative hearing shows that *877 Tuba Agency’s plan was the initial part of a two-stage project, the second stage of which would include a Marysville Dam and a 1,000,000 acre-foot reservoir approximately 5 miles downstream from the Parks Bar damsite.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission green cal · 2005 1 sentence 2022(Sierra Club v. California Coastal Com. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 839, 863 .) We review the trial court’s exclusion of such evidence for abuse of discretion.	1	2022–2022
People v. Wilson green cal · 2005 1 sentence 2015(See People v. Jasso (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1370-1371 [although defendant has no duty to present evidence, prosecutor may properly comment on a defendant's failure to present logical evidence to support defense theory]; People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 338 .) We note further that the record does not support defendant's claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct by continuing to refer to defendant's failure to produce the transcript even though the court sustained objections to the questioning.	1	2015–2015
Brenner v. Department of Motor Vehicles green calctapp · 2010 2 sentences 2014(Brenner, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 370 ; Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1233 .) “ ‘ “The licensee must show, ‘through cross-examination of the officer or by the introduction of affirmative evidence, that official standards were in any respect not observed . . . .’ [Citation.] Once such showing has been made, the burden shifts to the DMV to prove that the test was reliable despite the violation.” ’ ” (Brenner, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 370 ; Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1233 .) A trial court may review DMV’s determination sustaining a suspension. (§ 13559, subd. (a).) 2014(Brenner, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 370 ; Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1233 .) “ ‘ “The licensee must show, ‘through cross-examination of the officer or by the introduction of affirmative evidence, that official standards were in any respect not observed . . . .’ [Citation.] Once such showing has been made, the burden shifts to the DMV to prove that the test was reliable despite the violation.” ’ ” (Brenner, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 370 ; Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1233 .) A trial court may review DMV’s determination sustaining a suspension. (§ 13559, subd. (a).)	1	2014–2014
Manriquez v. Gourley green calctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2014(Brenner, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 370 ; Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1233 .) “ ‘ “The licensee must show, ‘through cross-examination of the officer or by the introduction of affirmative evidence, that official standards were in any respect not observed . . . .’ [Citation.] Once such showing has been made, the burden shifts to the DMV to prove that the test was reliable despite the violation.” ’ ” (Brenner, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 370 ; Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1233 .) A trial court may review DMV’s determination sustaining a suspension. (§ 13559, subd. (a).) 2014(Brenner, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 370 ; Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1233 .) “ ‘ “The licensee must show, ‘through cross-examination of the officer or by the introduction of affirmative evidence, that official standards were in any respect not observed . . . .’ [Citation.] Once such showing has been made, the burden shifts to the DMV to prove that the test was reliable despite the violation.” ’ ” (Brenner, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 370 ; Manriquez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1233 .) A trial court may review DMV’s determination sustaining a suspension. (§ 13559, subd. (a).)	1	2014–2014
Takahashi v. Board of Education green calctapp · 1988 1 sentence 2009That judgment has long since become final.” (Takahashi, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 1474 .) We concluded the plaintiff could not “prevail against defendants on the basis that their conduct toward her that caused her termination was wrongful in the face of a final state court determination in the first action that the district had the right to terminate her for incompetency.” (Id. at p. 1482.) To the contrary, in this case, there was no finding that the Agency’s actions as a whole were justified by George’s behavior.	1	2009–2009
Cohen v. California green scotus · 1971 2 sentences 1973Although correctly explaining that the role of the courts is limited to determining whether the cause for termination relates to the welfare of the school or its pupils ( ante, pp. 532-534), the majority purport to apply that test by inquiring whether in fact the teacher's conduct adversely affected the welfare of the school or its pupils. ( Ante, at p. 527, line 10, p. 533, line 9, p. 535, line 5, pp. 535-537.) Yet the question of adverse effect is precisely the question reserved to the school board by section 13443 otherwise a court could in every case reverse the board's decision by findi 1973Although correctly explaining that the role of the courts is limited to determining whether the cause for termination relates to the welfare of the school or its pupils ( ante, pp. 532-534), the majority purport to apply that test by inquiring whether in fact the teacher's conduct adversely affected the welfare of the school or its pupils. ( Ante, at p. 527, line 10, p. 533, line 9, p. 535, line 5, pp. 535-537.) Yet the question of adverse effect is precisely the question reserved to the school board by section 13443 otherwise a court could in every case reverse the board's decision by findi	1	1973–1973

Where else courts name it

CA 13 (1965–2022) NY 7 (1989–2021) HI 7 (1997–2020) NM 5 (1964–1995) MA 4 (1997–2001) RI 4 (1994–2003) ND 4 (1984–1997) FL 3 (2000–2023) MO 2 (1980–1992) LA 2 (1991–1992) DE 2 (1982–2021) TX 2 (1979–1991)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check