due process right challenge (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

due process right challenge in California

8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2026 3 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 (5)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Garceaugreen
cal · 1993 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024Code, § 210; People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 177 [“The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends ‘logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference,’ to establish material facts . . . .”].) We 30 review a trial court’s exercise of discretion in admitting or excluding evidence for abuse, and we will not disturb the court’s ruling, “except on a showing the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 9-10 .) As the court observed, the People

11
People v. Suttongreen
calctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024I, § 29; People v. Sutton (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 795, 803 [“[T]he central meaning of procedural due process is that parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”].) Through the subpoenaed records and the testimony of the CDCR physician and the corrections captain, the People tried to show that George’s current physical and mental conditions were such that he was currently both physically capable and mentally disposed to commit a super strike if released. (§ 1172.2, subd. (b).) The People’s offer of proof was focused and specif

11
County of Orange v. LESLIE B.green
calctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009County of Orange v. Leslie B. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 976, 979-982 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 797 ], held the trial court properly declined to apply the presumption where it would allow the biological father to escape his support obligations and the purposes served by the presumption were undermined by the lack of a parental relationship between the child and the mother’s former husband.

2009County of Orange v. Leslie B. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 976, 979-982 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 797 ], held the trial court properly declined to apply the presumption where it would allow the biological father to escape his support obligations and the purposes served by the presumption were undermined by the lack of a parental relationship between the child and the mother’s former husband.

11
La Prade v. Department of Water & Powergreen
cal · 1945 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998Furthermore, the governmental employer bears the burden of proof in the evidentiary hearing, as “[i]t is axiomatic, in disciplinary administrative proceedings, that the burden of proving the charges rests upon the party making the charges. [Citations.]” (Parker v. City of Fountain Valley (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 99, 113 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 351 ]; La Prade v. Department of Water & Power (1945) 27 Cal.2d 47, 51 [ 162 P.2d 13 ].) MTDB points out that the cases on which Townsel primarily relies, including Loudermill , involved either civil service employees or other governmental employees who had a statu

1998Furthermore, the governmental employer bears the burden of proof in the evidentiary hearing, as “[i]t is axiomatic, in disciplinary administrative proceedings, that the burden of proving the charges rests upon the party making the charges. [Citations.]” (Parker v. City of Fountain Valley (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 99, 113 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 351 ]; La Prade v. Department of Water & Power (1945) 27 Cal.2d 47, 51 [ 162 P.2d 13 ].) MTDB points out that the cases on which Townsel primarily relies, including Loudermill , involved either civil service employees or other governmental employees who had a statu

11
Parker v. City of Fountain Valleygreen
calctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998Furthermore, the governmental employer bears the burden of proof in the evidentiary hearing, as “[i]t is axiomatic, in disciplinary administrative proceedings, that the burden of proving the charges rests upon the party making the charges. [Citations.]” (Parker v. City of Fountain Valley (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 99, 113 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 351 ]; La Prade v. Department of Water & Power (1945) 27 Cal.2d 47, 51 [ 162 P.2d 13 ].) MTDB points out that the cases on which Townsel primarily relies, including Loudermill , involved either civil service employees or other governmental employees who had a statu

1998Furthermore, the governmental employer bears the burden of proof in the evidentiary hearing, as “[i]t is axiomatic, in disciplinary administrative proceedings, that the burden of proving the charges rests upon the party making the charges. [Citations.]” (Parker v. City of Fountain Valley (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 99, 113 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 351 ]; La Prade v. Department of Water & Power (1945) 27 Cal.2d 47, 51 [ 162 P.2d 13 ].) MTDB points out that the cases on which Townsel primarily relies, including Loudermill , involved either civil service employees or other governmental employees who had a statu

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Arnett v. Dal Cielo green
cal · 1996
2 sentences

2018This power to make administrative inquiry is broad. ( Arnett v. Dal Cielo (1996) 14 Cal.4th 4 , 8, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 706 , 923 P.2d 1 .) It does not depend on a case or controversy, but authorizes investigation " ' "merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not." ' [Citation.]" ( Ibid . ) HomeAway argues that it has a due process right to challenge the tax collector's interpretation of the TOT ordinance in this proceeding because there is no other way for it to bring such a challenge, as it is not the entity who will be subjected to the

2018This power to make administrative inquiry is broad. ( Arnett v. Dal Cielo (1996) 14 Cal.4th 4 , 8, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 706 , 923 P.2d 1 .) It does not depend on a case or controversy, but authorizes investigation " ' "merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not." ' [Citation.]" ( Ibid . ) HomeAway argues that it has a due process right to challenge the tax collector's interpretation of the TOT ordinance in this proceeding because there is no other way for it to bring such a challenge, as it is not the entity who will be subjected to the

22018–2018
Townsel v. San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board green
calctapp · 1998
1 sentence

2026FAIRNESS OF THE REVIEW HEARING A. Process Provided “It is well settled that a public employee subject to discharge only for cause has a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment.” (Townsel v. San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 940, 946 .) As such, “a permanent . . . public employee facing a termination for cause has a due process right to challenge the factual basis for the termination in a full evidentiary hearing at some point in the termination process.

12026–2026
People v. Rodriguez green
cal · 1999
1 sentence

2024Code, § 210; People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 177 [“The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends ‘logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference,’ to establish material facts . . . .”].) We 30 review a trial court’s exercise of discretion in admitting or excluding evidence for abuse, and we will not disturb the court’s ruling, “except on a showing the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 9-10 .) As the court observed, the People

12024–2024
People v. Kopp green
calctapp5d · 2019
1 sentence

2021(See Kopp, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 96 , review granted.) The defendant bears the burden of 2 The criminal justice fee imposed under former Government Code section 29550 is no longer enforceable or collectible.

12021–2021
In Re Lisa R. green
cal · 1975
2 sentences

2009In re Lisa R. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 636 , 648-651 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 475 , 532 P.2d 123 ], held that a man had a due process right to challenge the presumption, in part because the purposes served by the presumption *384 were undermined by the death of the husband and wife.

2009In re Lisa R. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 636 , 648-651 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 475 , 532 P.2d 123 ], held that a man had a due process right to challenge the presumption, in part because the purposes served by the presumption *384 were undermined by the death of the husband and wife.

12009–2009
Fuentes v. Shevin green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

1977In Fuentes v. Shevin (1972) 407 U.S. 67 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 556 , 92 S.Ct. 1983 ], the Supreme Court held that a debtor has a due process right to hearing prior to seizure of his property on a writ of replevin.

1977In Fuentes v. Shevin (1972) 407 U.S. 67 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 556 , 92 S.Ct. 1983 ], the Supreme Court held that a debtor has a due process right to hearing prior to seizure of his property on a writ of replevin.

11977–1977
Morrissey v. Brewer green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

1977Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ], held that revocation of parole constitutes a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the due process clause.

1977Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ], held that revocation of parole constitutes a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the due process clause.

11977–1977

Where else courts name it

CA 8 (1977–2026) NJ 7 (1985–2017) WI 4 (1988–2017) PA 3 (1973–2020) VT 2 (2015–2015) AZ 2 (1991–2015) MS 2 (2000–2001) IL 2 (2011–2011) IN 2 (1986–2003) NC 2 (2022–2022)

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