expulsion hearing in California

2025(Nightlife Partners v. City of Beverly Hills (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 81, 87 .) If there is conflicting evidence, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision.” (Ibid.) Substantial evidence is that “of ponderable legal significance, which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value.” (Lusardi Construction Co. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1329 , 1343, internal quotations omitted.) This substantial evidence standard is built into the framework of the Education Code, which states the decision “to expel a pupil shall be base

2018He urges that in John A. , the Supreme Court "recognized that a school may not rely solely upon written statements from witnesses, which are hearsay and untested by cross-examination, when those witnesses are available to testify live. [Citation.]" In John A. , the student was expelled based upon the allegation that he assaulted and injured without provocation two other students during an on-campus fight after a football game. ( Id. at p. 304, 187 Cal.Rptr. 472 , 654 P.2d 242 .) At the expulsion hearing, the school district presented no witnesses, but instead relied upon a school administrator

2018He urges that in John A. , the Supreme Court "recognized that a school may not rely solely upon written statements from witnesses, which are hearsay and untested by cross-examination, when those witnesses are available to testify live. [Citation.]" In John A. , the student was expelled based upon the allegation that he assaulted and injured without provocation two other students during an on-campus fight after a football game. ( Id. at p. 304, 187 Cal.Rptr. 472 , 654 P.2d 242 .) At the expulsion hearing, the school district presented no witnesses, but instead relied upon a school administrator

2004As in County of Los Angeles II, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th 805 , the initial discretionary decision (in the former case, to file charges and prosecute a crime; in the present case, to seek expulsion) in turn triggers a federal constitutional mandate (in the former case, to provide ancillary defense services; in the present case, to provide an expulsion hearing).

2004As in County of Los Angeles II, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th 805 , the initial discretionary decision (in the former case, to file charges and prosecute a crime; in the present case, to seek expulsion) in turn triggers a federal constitutional mandate (in the former case, to provide ancillary defense services; in the present case, to provide an expulsion hearing).

2004An expulsion hearing shall be held within 30 schooldays after the date the principal or the superintendent of schools determines that the pupil has committed any of the acts enumerated in Section 48900 .. ..” (Ed. Code, § 48918, subd. (a).) (Subdivision (b) of section 48900 presently includes—as it did at the time relevant here—the offense of possession of a firearm.) 4 Of course, if a student does not invoke his or her entitlement to such a hearing, and instead waives the right to such a hearing, the hearing need not be held. 5 See Goss, supra, 419 U.S. 565, 581 ; Gonzales v. McEuen (C.D.Cal.

2001The court said: “The logical result of respondent’s argument would be to allow an expulsion hearing to be held at any time within the period allowed for a decision so long as the decision were timely rendered.” (Garcia, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at p. 813 .) Such a construction, according to Garcia , would jeopardize the student’s right to a fair and prompt hearing.

2001(Peace Officers Assn., supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1147 .) In the present case, under the County Board’s interpretation, a school board would lose all jurisdiction over a suspended pupil who has had a full expulsion hearing because the school board missed the deadline for rendering a decision by a few days.

1998We must infer that the commission believes such persons are competent to participate in its proceedings in a representative capacity.'" ( Id ., at p. 223.) 3 We conclude that a school district is not required to allow a pupil or a pupil's parent or guardian to be represented at an expulsion hearing by a non-attorney such as an "educational advocate" or "administrative law advisor," but it may allow such representation under duly adopted rules and regulations. 1 All references hereafter to the Education Code are by section number only. 2 The hearing may become more trial-like if the district bo

1959The view that plaintiff does not have the burden of proof is supported in principle by the recent decision of Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 , 520 et seq. [ 78 S.Ct. 1332 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 ], where the United States Supreme Court, after assuming without deciding that California may deny tax exemptions to persons who engage in advocating overthrow of the government by force, held that the allocation to the taxpayer of the burden of proof upon such an issue concerning free speech constituted a denial of due process.

1959The view that plaintiff does not have the burden of proof is supported in principle by the recent decision of Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 , 520 et seq. [ 78 S.Ct. 1332 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 ], where the United States Supreme Court, after assuming without deciding that California may deny tax exemptions to persons who engage in advocating overthrow of the government by force, held that the allocation to the taxpayer of the burden of proof upon such an issue concerning free speech constituted a denial of due process.