NS-1391 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CODE OF CIVII~ PROCEDURE provided for by WP. If. & Inst. Code. § 10962, in ~ to enable a needy pev~n to establish ush judicial proceed·ap hi~ or her risht to · ted by Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10962, mmninfl. 74. In GeneeM produced in the exercise of reasonable diliglmce. unless relevant evidence wn~ improperly excluded v Division of Industrial Safety (1975) 13 C3d ~ ~n$ referred 1o in the charges ever saw the c I,, ·f)d admitted writing all of the preecrip- ti,.,,,i. Pest.cci v Board of Medical Examin~x (1975) 45 CArd 83, Il? Cai Rptr ~. ~ln Specific Instnoem cODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ing an application to ·pprpprmte water, the trial co·rs incorrectly held that aub~tantial evidence supported the board's impo~tion of a condition that the applicant permit public access to its ~ecreational reservoir~ where the reason for the condition was that the approved dive,sion of water from a river would reduce its flow, which would have an uncertain effect on the "fishery." and that it would result in '*diminished recrcational value" of the river, where the record showed that the fish~ demi·ds of the river were adequately met by conditions to the diversion IBreod to hatween the applicant and the State Dep~rtmem of Fish and Game, and adopted in suhatance by the ~rd, where, though there were clear inferences that the water level of the river would he lower at certoin times, the~e was no evlde~.e as to the eff~t of such decre~ in terms of pre~nt or pro~pcetive ret:reational use, and where it was not established that Io~ to the public from projected annual evaporation of water from the project equalled the Io~ to he suffered by the applic~ot through impo- sition of the condition. Bank of America v State Water ge~our~es Control Board (19'/4) 42 CA3d 198, 116 Cai gptr ??0. in a mandate proceeding to rev~e~ · deci~.on of the State Water Resource~ Control Board approv- ing an application to appropriate water, the record of the administrative prOC--~~--~ng did not support the trial court's ruling that "estoppel and waiver" barred the applicant's challenge to n condition imposed by the hoard that the applicant permit public ~__¢_~._ to its recreational re~'~ire, where., though one of the applicant's witp~_~'~ had stated that there would ha public accel, he finally concluded zhot the quettim~ of such _~-~t had "not yet been determined," and where the hoard'e order amc·dine decision noted that the record was conflicting as to the applicant's intent with regard to public ac.~ss. Bank of America v State Water gesource~ ~ontrol Boord (1974) 42 CA3d 198, 116 Cai Rptr 770. ~. --Employees' Rights A judgment denying · writ of mandate to · § 1094.6 former ~ity policeman who chellenfled the city council's denial of his application for reinststemeot and back pay had to he reversed, where the council had made no flndin~s, formal or informal. where it~ action could have been on any one of ~everai blse~ and where some of the ha~s tug- geared by the evidence would not support that ~etion; thus, remand to the city wa~ required for another hearins followed by appropriate finding. Hadley v Ontario (1974) 43 CA3d 121, 117 Cai Rptr 513. ~. In Gram'al A jud~meor in an administrative mandate pro- ceedine upholding the discharge of a police ol~cer for lying to departmental investigatorx, required ~vet~] where the trial court applied the substan- tial evidence ~tandard of review approved by cur- rent decisional law, but where, while an appeal of the judgment was pendinfl, the Supreme Court rendered · decision holding that an order or decision of an agency substantially affecting a fundamental vested right is to be revic~ed by the trial court exercising its independent judgment on the evidence, which ruic was specifically made applicable to all pending appeals. Furthermore, the appellate court could not conduct the de novo review in place of the trial court, in the interest of expediency, since it did not have the nme power se the t~ai court in ~evicwing the administrative p_r,~',.--d!ng, but was limited to determining whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's Sndinp. Br~h v ~ Angeles (1975) 45 CArd 120, 119 Cai Rptr 366. ~/. Hnrmlem and Revml~le ~'ror In mandamus proe~edings involving the review of a municipality's board of pension commi~ion- erx' denial of · policeman's application for a di~bility retirement pension, it was rever~ibic e.eror for the trial court to apply the substantial evidence test, rather than making an independent evaluation of the evidence. Craxer v Los Angeic~ (1974) 42 CA3d 76, 117 Cai Rptr 534. § 1094.6. [Time limit for seeking review of administrative determinations: Preparation of record: Application in local agency] (al Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provision of any statute, charter, or rule, for thc purposes of this section, the decision is final on the