Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 California opinions name it 2 courts 1946–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lyydikainen v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen2 sentences1959Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 4 Cal.2d 89, 97 [ 47 P.2d 719 ]; Lyydikainen v. Industrial Acc. Com., 36 Cal.App.2d 298, 304 [ 97 P.2d 993 ].) Even if regarded as a purely administrative agency, however, in exercising adjudicatory functions the commission is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. ‘The right to such a hearing is one of “the rudiments of fair play” (citation) assured to every litigant by the Fourteenth Amendment as a minimal requirement. ’ (Citations.) “The reasonable oppor 1959Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 4 Cal.2d 89, 97 [ 47 P.2d 719 ]; Lyydikainen v. Industrial Acc. Com., 36 Cal.App.2d 298, 304 [ 97 P.2d 993 ].) Even if regarded as a purely administrative agency, however, in exercising adjudicatory functions the commission is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. ‘The right to such a hearing is one of “the rudiments of fair play” (citation) assured to every litigant by the Fourteenth Amendment as a minimal requirement. ’ (Citations.) “The reasonable oppor | 3 | 3 |
Bankers Indemnity Insurance v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen2 sentences1959Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 4 Cal.2d 89, 97 [ 47 P.2d 719 ]; Lyydikainen v. Industrial Acc. Com., 36 Cal.App.2d 298, 304 [ 97 P.2d 993 ].) Even if regarded as a purely administrative agency, however, in exercising adjudicatory functions the commission is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. ‘The right to such a hearing is one of “the rudiments of fair play” (citation) assured to every litigant by the Fourteenth Amendment as a minimal requirement. ’ (Citations.) “The reasonable oppor 1959Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 4 Cal.2d 89, 97 [ 47 P.2d 719 ]; Lyydikainen v. Industrial Acc. Com., 36 Cal.App.2d 298, 304 [ 97 P.2d 993 ].) Even if regarded as a purely administrative agency, however, in exercising adjudicatory functions the commission is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. ‘The right to such a hearing is one of “the rudiments of fair play” (citation) assured to every litigant by the Fourteenth Amendment as a minimal requirement. ’ (Citations.) “The reasonable oppor | 3 | 3 |
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen2 sentences2019Co. v. Comm’n. (1937) 301 U.S. 292, 300 [company deprived of “fair hearing essential to due process” when public utilities commission ordered refunds based on unknown documents and failed to report the proofs underlying its calculations]; Fitzgerald v. Hampton (D.C. 1952Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 301 U.S. 292 [ 57 S.Ct. 724 , 81 L.Ed. 1093, 1102 ]; Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1 [ 58 S.Ct. 773 , 82 L.Ed. 1129, 1130-1131 ].) “The reasonable opportunity to meet and rebut the evidence produced by his opponent is generally recognized as one of the essentials of these minimal requirements (Ohio Bell Tel. | 1 | 2 |
Pence v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen2 sentences2000(Pence v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 48, 50-51 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 12 , 403 P.2d 140 ].) The Board “ ‘is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. 2000(Pence v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 48, 50-51 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 12 , 403 P.2d 140 ].) The Board “ ‘is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. Mobile Cranes, Inc.green2 sentences1998(McCarthy v. Mobil Cranes, Inc. (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 500, 506-507 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 750 ].) “ ‘Even if regarded as a purely administrative agency, however, in exercising adjudicatory functions the commission is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. 1998(McCarthy v. Mobil Cranes, Inc. (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 500, 506-507 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 750 ].) “ ‘Even if regarded as a purely administrative agency, however, in exercising adjudicatory functions the commission is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Caesar's Restaurant v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen2 sentences1998“The right *1277 to such a hearing is one of ‘the rudiments of fair play’ (citation) assured to every litigant by the Fourteenth Amendment as a minimal requirement.” (Citations.) [*T] The reasonable opportunity to meet and rebut the evidence produced by his opponent is generally recognized as one of the essentials of these minimal requirements (citations), and the right of cross-examination has frequentlv been referred to as another [citations].’ ” (Caesar’s Restaurant v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 850, 855 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 97 ].) The denial of a party’s right to call a witness present 1998“The right *1277 to such a hearing is one of ‘the rudiments of fair play’ (citation) assured to every litigant by the Fourteenth Amendment as a minimal requirement.” (Citations.) [*T] The reasonable opportunity to meet and rebut the evidence produced by his opponent is generally recognized as one of the essentials of these minimal requirements (citations), and the right of cross-examination has frequentlv been referred to as another [citations].’ ” (Caesar’s Restaurant v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 850, 855 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 97 ].) The denial of a party’s right to call a witness present | 1 | 1 |
Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen2 sentences1992(Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54,58 [ 240 P.2d 57 ].) Board rule 10500 provides that the Board “shall serve on each lien claimant, the notice of time and place of hearing and all findings, orders, decisions and awards which relate to the lien claim. 1992(Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54,58 [ 240 P.2d 57 ].) Board rule 10500 provides that the Board “shall serve on each lien claimant, the notice of time and place of hearing and all findings, orders, decisions and awards which relate to the lien claim. | 1 | 1 |
Marcus v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences1984Appeals Bd. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 598, 602 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 101 ].) In considering the issue in this case, we bear in mind that the Court of Appeal stated in Massachusetts etc. Inc. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1946) *971 74 Cal.App.2d 911, 913 [ 170 P.2d 36 ], that the Board “. . . exercises a portion of the judicial powers of the state and ‘in legal effect is a court.’ [Citations.] ... in exercising adjudicatory functions the commission is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. ‘The right to 1984Appeals Bd. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 598, 602 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 101 ].) In considering the issue in this case, we bear in mind that the Court of Appeal stated in Massachusetts etc. Inc. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1946) *971 74 Cal.App.2d 911, 913 [ 170 P.2d 36 ], that the Board “. . . exercises a portion of the judicial powers of the state and ‘in legal effect is a court.’ [Citations.] ... in exercising adjudicatory functions the commission is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. ‘The right to | 1 | 1 |
Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen2 sentences1984Appeals Bd. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 598, 602 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 101 ].) In considering the issue in this case, we bear in mind that the Court of Appeal stated in Massachusetts etc. Inc. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1946) *971 74 Cal.App.2d 911, 913 [ 170 P.2d 36 ], that the Board “. . . exercises a portion of the judicial powers of the state and ‘in legal effect is a court.’ [Citations.] ... in exercising adjudicatory functions the commission is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. ‘The right to 1984Appeals Bd. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 598, 602 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 101 ].) In considering the issue in this case, we bear in mind that the Court of Appeal stated in Massachusetts etc. Inc. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1946) *971 74 Cal.App.2d 911, 913 [ 170 P.2d 36 ], that the Board “. . . exercises a portion of the judicial powers of the state and ‘in legal effect is a court.’ [Citations.] ... in exercising adjudicatory functions the commission is bound by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to give the parties before it a fair and open hearing. ‘The right to | 1 | 1 |
Railroad Commission v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.green2 sentences1949Co., 302 U.S. 388, 393 [ 58 S.Ct. 334 , 82 L.Ed. 319 ]: "The right to a fair and open hearing is one of the rudiments of fair play assured to every litigant by the Federal Constitution as a minimal requirement." [Emphasis added.] This policy is expressed in our statutes: "The sittings of every court of justice shall be public, except as provided in the next section." (Code Civ. 1949Co., 302 U.S. 388, 393 [ 58 S.Ct. 334 , 82 L.Ed. 319 ]: "The right to a fair and open hearing is one of the rudiments of fair play assured to every litigant by the Federal Constitution as a minimal requirement." [Emphasis added.] This policy is expressed in our statutes: "The sittings of every court of justice shall be public, except as provided in the next section." (Code Civ. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Grannis v. Ordean
green
1 sentence2023I, § 7, subd. (a)); a case from the United States Supreme Court stating that due process requires an opportunity to be heard (Grannis v. Ordean (1914) 234 U.S. 385, 394 ); a case from the Court of Appeal stating that due process requires a fair and open hearing where the parties can offer evidence, inspect documents, and cross-examine witnesses (Rucker v. Workers’ Comp. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Rucker v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
green
1 sentence2023Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 ); and a case from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board stating that denial of an opportunity for discovery is a denial of due process (Cedeno v. American Nat. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. McCracken
green
2 sentences1955Proc., § 936; People v. McCracken, 39 Cal.2d 336 [ 246 P.2d 913 ].) It is petitioner’s contention on this appeal (1) that the court erred in denying him a fair and open hearing after granting his motion for such a hearing and ordering the return of petitioner to such court for such hearing; (2) that the court erred in rendering judgment and order without having the petitioner personally present; (3) that the court erred in rendering the judgment without the introduction of evidence in support thereof; (4) that the proceedings had were not authorized by law; and (5) that the provisions of the W 1955Proc., § 936; People v. McCracken, 39 Cal.2d 336 [ 246 P.2d 913 ].) It is petitioner’s contention on this appeal (1) that the court erred in denying him a fair and open hearing after granting his motion for such a hearing and ordering the return of petitioner to such court for such hearing; (2) that the court erred in rendering judgment and order without having the petitioner personally present; (3) that the court erred in rendering the judgment without the introduction of evidence in support thereof; (4) that the proceedings had were not authorized by law; and (5) that the provisions of the W | 1 | 1955–1955 |
People v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1955Proc., § 936; People v. McCracken, 39 Cal.2d 336 [ 246 P.2d 913 ].) It is petitioner’s contention on this appeal (1) that the court erred in denying him a fair and open hearing after granting his motion for such a hearing and ordering the return of petitioner to such court for such hearing; (2) that the court erred in rendering judgment and order without having the petitioner personally present; (3) that the court erred in rendering the judgment without the introduction of evidence in support thereof; (4) that the proceedings had were not authorized by law; and (5) that the provisions of the W 1955Proc., § 936; People v. McCracken, 39 Cal.2d 336 [ 246 P.2d 913 ].) It is petitioner’s contention on this appeal (1) that the court erred in denying him a fair and open hearing after granting his motion for such a hearing and ordering the return of petitioner to such court for such hearing; (2) that the court erred in rendering judgment and order without having the petitioner personally present; (3) that the court erred in rendering the judgment without the introduction of evidence in support thereof; (4) that the proceedings had were not authorized by law; and (5) that the provisions of the W | 1 | 1955–1955 |
People v. Neal
green
2 sentences1955Proc., § 936; People v. McCracken, 39 Cal.2d 336 [ 246 P.2d 913 ].) It is petitioner’s contention on this appeal (1) that the court erred in denying him a fair and open hearing after granting his motion for such a hearing and ordering the return of petitioner to such court for such hearing; (2) that the court erred in rendering judgment and order without having the petitioner personally present; (3) that the court erred in rendering the judgment without the introduction of evidence in support thereof; (4) that the proceedings had were not authorized by law; and (5) that the provisions of the W 1955Proc., § 936; People v. McCracken, 39 Cal.2d 336 [ 246 P.2d 913 ].) It is petitioner’s contention on this appeal (1) that the court erred in denying him a fair and open hearing after granting his motion for such a hearing and ordering the return of petitioner to such court for such hearing; (2) that the court erred in rendering judgment and order without having the petitioner personally present; (3) that the court erred in rendering the judgment without the introduction of evidence in support thereof; (4) that the proceedings had were not authorized by law; and (5) that the provisions of the W | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Morgan v. United States
green
2 sentences1952Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 301 U.S. 292 [ 57 S.Ct. 724 , 81 L.Ed. 1093, 1102 ]; Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1 [ 58 S.Ct. 773 , 82 L.Ed. 1129, 1130-1131 ].) “The reasonable opportunity to meet and rebut the evidence produced by his opponent is generally recognized as one of the essentials of these minimal requirements (Ohio Bell Tel. 1952Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 301 U.S. 292 [ 57 S.Ct. 724 , 81 L.Ed. 1093, 1102 ]; Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1 [ 58 S.Ct. 773 , 82 L.Ed. 1129, 1130-1131 ].) “The reasonable opportunity to meet and rebut the evidence produced by his opponent is generally recognized as one of the essentials of these minimal requirements (Ohio Bell Tel. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
La Prade v. Department of Water & Power
green
2 sentences1949Proc., 124.) While that refers to courts of justice, it must be remembered that a local civil service commission, in hearing and determining whether an employee should be discharged, is exercising quasi judicial functions (Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., 26 Cal.2d 716 [ 160 P.2d 816 ]; LaPrade v. Department of Water & Power, 27 Cal.2d 47 [ 162 P.2d 13 ]), and by analogy, rules for proceedings in courts are to some extent applicable to such bodies (Steen v. City of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.2d 542 [ 190 P.2d 937 ]). 1949Proc., 124.) While that refers to courts of justice, it must be remembered that a local civil service commission, in hearing and determining whether an employee should be discharged, is exercising quasi judicial functions (Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., 26 Cal.2d 716 [ 160 P.2d 816 ]; LaPrade v. Department of Water & Power, 27 Cal.2d 47 [ 162 P.2d 13 ]), and by analogy, rules for proceedings in courts are to some extent applicable to such bodies (Steen v. City of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.2d 542 [ 190 P.2d 937 ]). | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners
green
2 sentences1949Proc., 124.) While that refers to courts of justice, it must be remembered that a local civil service commission, in hearing and determining whether an employee should be discharged, is exercising quasi judicial functions (Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., 26 Cal.2d 716 [ 160 P.2d 816 ]; LaPrade v. Department of Water & Power, 27 Cal.2d 47 [ 162 P.2d 13 ]), and by analogy, rules for proceedings in courts are to some extent applicable to such bodies (Steen v. City of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.2d 542 [ 190 P.2d 937 ]). 1949Proc., 124.) While that refers to courts of justice, it must be remembered that a local civil service commission, in hearing and determining whether an employee should be discharged, is exercising quasi judicial functions (Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., 26 Cal.2d 716 [ 160 P.2d 816 ]; LaPrade v. Department of Water & Power, 27 Cal.2d 47 [ 162 P.2d 13 ]), and by analogy, rules for proceedings in courts are to some extent applicable to such bodies (Steen v. City of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.2d 542 [ 190 P.2d 937 ]). | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Steen v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences1949Proc., 124.) While that refers to courts of justice, it must be remembered that a local civil service commission, in hearing and determining whether an employee should be discharged, is exercising quasi judicial functions (Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., 26 Cal.2d 716 [ 160 P.2d 816 ]; LaPrade v. Department of Water & Power, 27 Cal.2d 47 [ 162 P.2d 13 ]), and by analogy, rules for proceedings in courts are to some extent applicable to such bodies (Steen v. City of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.2d 542 [ 190 P.2d 937 ]). 1949Proc., 124.) While that refers to courts of justice, it must be remembered that a local civil service commission, in hearing and determining whether an employee should be discharged, is exercising quasi judicial functions (Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., 26 Cal.2d 716 [ 160 P.2d 816 ]; LaPrade v. Department of Water & Power, 27 Cal.2d 47 [ 162 P.2d 13 ]), and by analogy, rules for proceedings in courts are to some extent applicable to such bodies (Steen v. City of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.2d 542 [ 190 P.2d 937 ]). | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.