de facto officer doctrine in California

2026No. 765, supra, 161 Cal. at pp. 571-572 (doctrine barred challenge to municipal corporation’s tax assessments on the basis that the corporation had been illegally organized). 10 24-802 implement Proposition B, which was itself held unlawful. 56 The City has not cited any authorities applying the de facto officer doctrine in the context of a challenge to a city charter amendment.

2025Assn. of Firefighters, etc. v. City of Palo Alto (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 602 , 619; Rando, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at pp. 878-879; 87 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at p. 31. 49 Bunker Hill, supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. 42 (“The de facto doctrine in sustaining official acts is well established”). 50 See Fair Political Practices Com’n. v. Californians Against Corruption (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 269, 280 , citing Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 . 10 25-301 warranto.” 51 Indeed, the very basis for applying the de facto officer doctrine here to safeguard the official acts of C

2025Hoffman v. Hecht (1895) 105 Cal. 621, 629-630 ; 95 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 67 , 70, fn. 13 (2012) (acts as planning commissioner valid even though office was forfeited by assumption of incompatible office); 82 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 219 , 223, fn. 3 (1999) (even “questionable appointees” “are de facto officers, and their actions would be valid and binding”); 74 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 116 , 121 (1991) (board member’s votes valid even after he assumed incompatible office as county superintendent). 32 Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom, Inc. v. Ensher (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 250, 255 (Ensher); see also Oakland Paving Co.

2025Assn. of Firefighters, etc. v. City of Palo Alto (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 602 , 619; Rando, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at pp. 878-879; 87 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at p. 31. 49 Bunker Hill, supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. 42 (“The de facto doctrine in sustaining official acts is well established”). 50 See Fair Political Practices Com’n. v. Californians Against Corruption (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 269, 280 , citing Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 . 10 25-301 warranto.” 51 Indeed, the very basis for applying the de facto officer doctrine here to safeguard the official acts of C

2018Proc., § 803.) It is the exclusive remedy in cases where it is available. ( Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627 , 633, 75 Cal.Rptr. 766 , 451 P.2d 406 .) District Attorneys and City Attorneys are public officers. ( Coulter v. Pool (1921) 187 Cal. 181 , 187, 201 P. 120 .) Title to an office cannot be tried by mandamus, injunction, writ of certiorari, petition for declaratory relief or in a criminal case as a collateral issue. ( *955 People v. Bowen (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 783 , 789, 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 .) Furthermore, the de facto officer doctrine requires that a valid challenge to the au

2018Proc., § 803.) It is the exclusive remedy in cases where it is available. ( Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627 , 633, 75 Cal.Rptr. 766 , 451 P.2d 406 .) District Attorneys and City Attorneys are public officers. ( Coulter v. Pool (1921) 187 Cal. 181 , 187, 201 P. 120 .) Title to an office cannot be tried by mandamus, injunction, writ of certiorari, petition for declaratory relief or in a criminal case as a collateral issue. ( *955 People v. Bowen (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 783 , 789, 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 .) Furthermore, the de facto officer doctrine requires that a valid challenge to the au

2018Proc., § 803.) It is the exclusive remedy in cases where it is available. ( Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627 , 633, 75 Cal.Rptr. 766 , 451 P.2d 406 .) District Attorneys and City Attorneys are public officers. ( Coulter v. Pool (1921) 187 Cal. 181 , 187, 201 P. 120 .) Title to an office cannot be tried by mandamus, injunction, writ of certiorari, petition for declaratory relief or in a criminal case as a collateral issue. ( *955 People v. Bowen (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 783 , 789, 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 .) Furthermore, the de facto officer doctrine requires that a valid challenge to the au

2018Proc., § 803.) It is the exclusive remedy in cases where it is available. ( Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627 , 633, 75 Cal.Rptr. 766 , 451 P.2d 406 .) District Attorneys and City Attorneys are public officers. ( Coulter v. Pool (1921) 187 Cal. 181 , 187, 201 P. 120 .) Title to an office cannot be tried by mandamus, injunction, writ of certiorari, petition for declaratory relief or in a criminal case as a collateral issue. ( *955 People v. Bowen (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 783 , 789, 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 .) Furthermore, the de facto officer doctrine requires that a valid challenge to the au

2005(See, e.g., Town of Susanville v. Long (1904) 144 Cal. 362, 364-365 , 77 P. 987 ; People v. Bowen (1991) 231 Cal. App.3d 783, 789-790 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 ; Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom, Inc. v. Ensher (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 250, 256-257 , 47 Cal.Rptr. 688 .) [26] *69 Marine Forests maintains that the de facto officer doctrine is inapplicable here because the separation of powers challenge relates to the scope of the actions that the Coastal Commission properly may undertake (assertedly only quasi-legislative actions, and not executive or quasi-judicial actions) rather than to the validity of the

2005(See, e.g., Town of Susanville v. Long (1904) 144 Cal. 362, 364-365 , 77 P. 987 ; People v. Bowen (1991) 231 Cal. App.3d 783, 789-790 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 ; Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom, Inc. v. Ensher (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 250, 256-257 , 47 Cal.Rptr. 688 .) [26] *69 Marine Forests maintains that the de facto officer doctrine is inapplicable here because the separation of powers challenge relates to the scope of the actions that the Coastal Commission properly may undertake (assertedly only quasi-legislative actions, and not executive or quasi-judicial actions) rather than to the validity of the

2005Co. v. Donovan (1912) 19 Cal.App. 488, 495 [ 126 P. 388 ], quoting State v. Carroll (1871) 38 Conn. 449 [ 9 Am.Rep. 409 ]; see, e.g., People v. Elkus (1922) 59 Cal.App. 396, 407-408 [ 211 P. 34 ]), and further establish that the de facto officer doctrine is applicable even when the challenge to the validity of an officer’s appointment or qualifications has been timely raised in an administrative or judicial proceeding contesting the validity of an official action of the officer, because the doctrine contemplates that a valid challenge to the officer’s qualifications must be raised and resolved

2005Co. v. Donovan (1912) 19 Cal.App. 488, 495 , 126 P. 388 , quoting State v. Carroll (1871) 38 Conn. 449 [ 9 Am.Rep. 409 ]; see, e.g., People v. Elkus (1922) 59 Cal.App. 396, 407-408 , 211 P. 34 ), and further establish that the de facto officer doctrine is applicable even when the challenge to the validity of an officer's appointment or qualifications has been timely raised in an administrative or judicial proceeding contesting the validity of an official action of the officer, because the doctrine contemplates that a valid challenge to the officer's qualifications must be raised and resolved i

2005Indeed, in Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. 1, 142 , 96 S.Ct. 612 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 , the United States Supreme Court effectively applied the de facto officer doctrine in a setting directly analogous to that presented here.

2005Indeed, in Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. 1, 142 , 96 S.Ct. 612 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 , the United States Supreme Court effectively applied the de facto officer doctrine in a setting directly analogous to that presented here.

2005Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063-1065 , 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 358 , 875 P.2d 73 .) On similar grounds, the additional requests for judicial notice filed by Marine Forests and other amici curiae also are denied. [26] Marine Forests contends that the de facto officer doctrine should not be applied in cases in which a challenge to the validity of the Commission's composition has been timely raised in the administrative or judicial proceeding, on the ground that application of the doctrine in such cases improperly would deter parties from ever raising an objection to provisions governing

2005Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063-1065 , 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 358 , 875 P.2d 73 .) On similar grounds, the additional requests for judicial notice filed by Marine Forests and other amici curiae also are denied. [26] Marine Forests contends that the de facto officer doctrine should not be applied in cases in which a challenge to the validity of the Commission's composition has been timely raised in the administrative or judicial proceeding, on the ground that application of the doctrine in such cases improperly would deter parties from ever raising an objection to provisions governing

2005(See, e.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Com. (1987) 483 U.S. 825 , 107 S.Ct. 3141 , 97 L.Ed.2d 677 .) But Marine Forests fails to cite any California authority supporting the imposition of such a limitation on the de facto officer doctrine, a limitation that largely would eviscerate the doctrine and that finds no support in its underlying purpose.

2005(See, e.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Com. (1987) 483 U.S. 825 , 107 S.Ct. 3141 , 97 L.Ed.2d 677 .) But Marine Forests fails to cite any California authority supporting the imposition of such a limitation on the de facto officer doctrine, a limitation that largely would eviscerate the doctrine and that finds no support in its underlying purpose.

2003In support of this assertion, defendants cite Warga v. Cooper (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 371 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 ], a case in which the court applied the doctrine of res judicata, not collateral estoppel, to an issue in an action involving the same parties as the prior proceeding.

2003In support of this assertion, defendants cite Warga v. Cooper (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 371 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 684 ], a case in which the court applied the doctrine of res judicata, not collateral estoppel, to an issue in an action involving the same parties as the prior proceeding.

2003L.Rev. 1121, 1135 (De Facto Officer Doctrine); Daniels v. Industrial Com’n (2002) 201 Ill.2d 160 [ 266 Ill.Dec. 864 , 775 N.E.2d 936 ] (Daniels).) We need not decide whether the law review note and the Illinois case reflect California law because, even assuming they do, they do not provide for an exception to the de facto officer doctrine under the facts of this case.

2003L.Rev. 1121, 1135 (De Facto Officer Doctrine); Daniels v. Industrial Com’n (2002) 201 Ill.2d 160 [ 266 Ill.Dec. 864 , 775 N.E.2d 936 ] (Daniels).) We need not decide whether the law review note and the Illinois case reflect California law because, even assuming they do, they do not provide for an exception to the de facto officer doctrine under the facts of this case.

2003Cir. 1984) 729 F.2d 1475 [questioning validity of de facto officer doctrine].) Citing several draft evasion cases in which courts allowed as a defense the improper selection of members of local draft boards, the note proposes an exception to the de facto officer doctrine “when a qualification for a specific office aims to protect the individuals subject to that official’s authority.” (De Facto Officer Doctrine, supra, 85 Colum.

1965Among the cases applying the de facto officer rule to *257 judges are People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480; Merced Bank v. Rosenthal, 99 Cal. 39 [ 33 P. 732 ] (holdover by judge beyond term, law then being unclear about termination date); Matter of Danford, 157 Cal. 425 [ 108 P. 322 ] (if it were a fact that the judge was an alien and therefore ineligible, he was nonetheless a de facto officer); Pickens v. Johnson, 42 Cal.2d 399 [ 267 P.2d 801 ] (held, judge held office de jure but if he were de facto judge, his authority could not be questioned in private lawsuit).

1965Among the cases applying the de facto officer rule to *257 judges are People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480; Merced Bank v. Rosenthal, 99 Cal. 39 [ 33 P. 732 ] (holdover by judge beyond term, law then being unclear about termination date); Matter of Danford, 157 Cal. 425 [ 108 P. 322 ] (if it were a fact that the judge was an alien and therefore ineligible, he was nonetheless a de facto officer); Pickens v. Johnson, 42 Cal.2d 399 [ 267 P.2d 801 ] (held, judge held office de jure but if he were de facto judge, his authority could not be questioned in private lawsuit).

1965Among the cases applying the de facto officer rule to *257 judges are People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480; Merced Bank v. Rosenthal, 99 Cal. 39 [ 33 P. 732 ] (holdover by judge beyond term, law then being unclear about termination date); Matter of Danford, 157 Cal. 425 [ 108 P. 322 ] (if it were a fact that the judge was an alien and therefore ineligible, he was nonetheless a de facto officer); Pickens v. Johnson, 42 Cal.2d 399 [ 267 P.2d 801 ] (held, judge held office de jure but if he were de facto judge, his authority could not be questioned in private lawsuit).

1965Among the cases applying the de facto officer rule to *257 judges are People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480; Merced Bank v. Rosenthal, 99 Cal. 39 [ 33 P. 732 ] (holdover by judge beyond term, law then being unclear about termination date); Matter of Danford, 157 Cal. 425 [ 108 P. 322 ] (if it were a fact that the judge was an alien and therefore ineligible, he was nonetheless a de facto officer); Pickens v. Johnson, 42 Cal.2d 399 [ 267 P.2d 801 ] (held, judge held office de jure but if he were de facto judge, his authority could not be questioned in private lawsuit).

1965Among the cases applying the de facto officer rule to *257 judges are People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480; Merced Bank v. Rosenthal, 99 Cal. 39 [ 33 P. 732 ] (holdover by judge beyond term, law then being unclear about termination date); Matter of Danford, 157 Cal. 425 [ 108 P. 322 ] (if it were a fact that the judge was an alien and therefore ineligible, he was nonetheless a de facto officer); Pickens v. Johnson, 42 Cal.2d 399 [ 267 P.2d 801 ] (held, judge held office de jure but if he were de facto judge, his authority could not be questioned in private lawsuit).

1965Among the cases applying the de facto officer rule to *257 judges are People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480; Merced Bank v. Rosenthal, 99 Cal. 39 [ 33 P. 732 ] (holdover by judge beyond term, law then being unclear about termination date); Matter of Danford, 157 Cal. 425 [ 108 P. 322 ] (if it were a fact that the judge was an alien and therefore ineligible, he was nonetheless a de facto officer); Pickens v. Johnson, 42 Cal.2d 399 [ 267 P.2d 801 ] (held, judge held office de jure but if he were de facto judge, his authority could not be questioned in private lawsuit).

1965Among the cases applying the de facto officer rule to *257 judges are People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480; Merced Bank v. Rosenthal, 99 Cal. 39 [ 33 P. 732 ] (holdover by judge beyond term, law then being unclear about termination date); Matter of Danford, 157 Cal. 425 [ 108 P. 322 ] (if it were a fact that the judge was an alien and therefore ineligible, he was nonetheless a de facto officer); Pickens v. Johnson, 42 Cal.2d 399 [ 267 P.2d 801 ] (held, judge held office de jure but if he were de facto judge, his authority could not be questioned in private lawsuit).