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.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Susanville v. Lee C. Hess Co.green2 sentences1992Hess Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 684 [ 290 P.2d 520 ] (hereafter Susanville ), which states: "where a statute provides an administrative remedy and also provides an alternative judicial remedy the rule requiring exhaustion of the administrative remedy has no application if the person aggrieved and having both remedies afforded him by the same statute, elects to use the judicial one." ( Id., at p. 689, citing Scripps etc. Hospital v. Cal. Emp. 1992Hess Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 684 [ 290 P.2d 520 ] (hereafter Susanville ), which states: "where a statute provides an administrative remedy and also provides an alternative judicial remedy the rule requiring exhaustion of the administrative remedy has no application if the person aggrieved and having both remedies afforded him by the same statute, elects to use the judicial one." ( Id., at p. 689, citing Scripps etc. Hospital v. Cal. Emp. | 3 | 4 |
Abelleira v. District Court of Appealgreen2 sentences1961(Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280, 292 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ].) It is equally well settled that where a statute provides an administrative remedy and also provides an alternative judicial remedy the rule requiring exhaustion of the administrative remedy has no application if the person aggrieved and having both remedies afforded him by the same statute, elects to use the judicial one. 1961(Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280, 292 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ].) It is equally well settled that where a statute provides an administrative remedy and also provides an alternative judicial remedy the rule requiring exhaustion of the administrative remedy has no application if the person aggrieved and having both remedies afforded him by the same statute, elects to use the judicial one. | 3 | 3 |
SYNGENTA CORP PROTECTION, INC. v. Hellikergreen2 sentences2013Under the alternative judicial remedy exception, “[t]he exhaustion requirement does not apply ... if the Legislature indicates its intent to allow judicial relief notwithstanding the failure to exhaust administrative remedies by providing for a judicial proceeding as an alternative to the administrative remedy.” (Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1159-1160 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 191 ].) The California Supreme Court articulated the exception as follows: “ ‘It is . . . well settled that where a statute provides an administrative remedy and also provides an alterna 2013Under the alternative judicial remedy exception, “[t]he exhaustion requirement does not apply ... if the Legislature indicates its intent to allow judicial relief notwithstanding the failure to exhaust administrative remedies by providing for a judicial proceeding as an alternative to the administrative remedy.” (Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1159-1160 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 191 ].) The California Supreme Court articulated the exception as follows: “ ‘It is . . . well settled that where a statute provides an administrative remedy and also provides an alterna | 1 | 1 |
Scripps Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. California Employment Commissiongreen2 sentences1992Com. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 669, 673-674 [ 151 P.2d 109 , 155 A.L.R. 360 ] (hereafter Scripps ); see also Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 292 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ] (hereafter Abelleira ) ["where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act"].) Contrary to the People's suggestions, we do not view the cited cases as addressing the primary jurisdiction doctrine. 1992Com. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 669, 673-674 [ 151 P.2d 109 , 155 A.L.R. 360 ] (hereafter Scripps ); see also Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 292 [ 109 P.2d 942 , 132 A.L.R. 715 ] (hereafter Abelleira ) ["where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act"].) Contrary to the People's suggestions, we do not view the cited cases as addressing the primary jurisdiction doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Muir v. Steinberggreen2 sentences1986(See also Muir v. Steinberg (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 264, 268-270 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 431 ].) The key to this question is found at section 55437, part of the general provisions governing the division. 1986(See also Muir v. Steinberg (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 264, 268-270 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 431 ].) The key to this question is found at section 55437, part of the general provisions governing the division. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2015Notwithstanding the holding of Campbell a division of the Second Appellate District held that section 98.7 merely provided the employee with an additional remedy, and that the employee was not required to exhaust section 98.7’s administrative remedy before bringing a judicial action pursuant to section 1102.5. ( Lloyd, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th 320, 331-332 .) As stated, the trial court relied on Lloyd in overruling the demurrer. 5 In 2013 the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 666 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 666).4 Senate Bill 666 added section 244, which states in pertinent part: “An in 2015Notwithstanding the holding of Campbell a division of the Second Appellate District held that section 98.7 merely provided the employee with an additional remedy, and that the employee was not required to exhaust section 98.7’s administrative remedy before bringing a judicial action pursuant to section 1102.5. ( Lloyd, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th 320, 331-332 .) As stated, the trial court relied on Lloyd in overruling the demurrer. 5 In 2013 the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 666 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 666).4 Senate Bill 666 added section 244, which states in pertinent part: “An in | 1 | 2015–2015 |