Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/unemployment-insurance-board-appeals-290/2
Timestamp: 2020-08-10 22:16:40
Document Index: 692397960

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1094', '§ 1094', '§ 1094', '§4115', '§ 1094', '§ 1094', '§ 1094', '§1094', '§1094']

26-50 of 90 results
Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 is granted. Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees is denied. Valencia filed this petition, pursuant to CCP § 1094.5 seeking a preemptory writ of administrative mandate directed at Board of Registered Nursing (“BRN”) to set aside its decision of May 23, 2018. Petitioner also seeks cost of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees.
ELEVUE INC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
ANDREA FRANQUEZ VS. WILL LIGHTBOURNE DIRECTOR CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
This request is denied, as it appears to circumvent the general rule that in cases arising under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, evidence is generally limited to the administrative record. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5 subd. (e).) Here, the evidence could have been produced earlier, and the County could have included it as an exhibit at the administrative hearing, but it did not.
EVERGREEN PHARMACEUTICAL OF CALIFORNIA INC VS BOARD OF PHARM
Unemployment Ins. Comp. Appeals Bd., (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 342, 350. This includes an agency’s application of law to undisputed facts. Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 575, 585. C. Governing Law 1. Business and Professions Code[1] Pharmacy technicians are not authorized to perform any act requiring the exercise of professional judgment by a pharmacist. §4115(c).
Standard of Review The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.'* A writ will issue if the Courtfindsa prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the respondent "has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the ' Petitioner's ciurent challenge is solely on the basis that Respondent's actions are barred by the statute of limitations or equitable estoppel.
Standard of Review The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. 4 A writ will issue if the Court finds a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the respondent “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the 3 Petitioner’s current challenge is solely on the basis that Respondent’s actions are barred by the statute of limitations or equitable estoppel.
THE AZARI GROUP REAL ESTATE INC VS. BUREAU OF REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Standard of Review The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue if the Court finds a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the respondent "has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence." (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b).)
NADINE YASSA, MD VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue if the Court finds a prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the respondent “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b).)
The instant petition is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A writ will issue ifthe Courtfindsa prejudicial abuse of discretion, which is established if the respondent "has not proceeded in the maimer required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or thefindingsare not supported by the evidence." (Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. § 1094.5(b).)
SODA CANYON GROUP VS. COUNTY OF NAPA, ET AL.
Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 596-597.)
Judge Cynthia Smith
MARIA MAGDALENA SPITZ VS BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY ET AL
CCP §1094.5(b). An abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. CCP §1094.5(c). CCP section 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review of evidentiary findings. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 811. Instead, that issue was left to the courts.