Court Opinion

ID: 9883549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:46:48.220145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:25.297042
License: Public Domain

VALLÉES, J.
I concur in the judgment. I am not in accord with the statement in the opinion that “a court is not empowered to substitute its determination for the determination *52of the agency or the legislative body in the absence of abuse of discretion, fraud, collusion, or bad faith on the part of the agency or the legislative body.” Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that the validity of any final administrative order or decision may be inquired into in a proceeding for a writ of mandate. (See Redevelopment Agency v. Hayes, 122 Cal.App.2d 777, 812 [226 P.2d 105].) And section 1094.5, subdivison (b), provides that:
“The inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion 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 thé findings are not supported by the evidence.”
The agency says it is a “State Agency.” If that be true, in a mandamus proceeding to review its final order the court is authorized to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence. (Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners, 32 Cal.2d 301, 308 [196 P.2d 20]; Cooper v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 35 Cal.2d 242, 246 [217 P.2d 630, 18 A.L.R.2d 593] ; Thomas v. California Emp. Stab. Com., 39 Cal.2d 501, 504 [247 P.2d 561].)
I concur in the judgment solely on the ground stated in the agency’s brief, which reads:
“Also, a court should not undertake to adjudicate any of appellant’s alleged rights until such rights first have been determined and established in accordance with the procedure set up for that purpose in the Community Redevelopment Law, as hereinbefore referred to.
“Attention is called to Section 33481(b) of the Community Redevelopment Law which requires a finding that the area designated as a blighted area ‘requires study to determine if a redevelopment project or projects within said area are feasible. ’ It is for the purpose of making this study and investigation that this respondent has applied to the Federal Government for a preliminary loan, pursuant to the provisions of the Housing Act of 1949 as amended. Appellant admits this situation by the allegations in his amended complaint in paragraph XV, lines 2 to 20 on page 9.
“In other words, it is the contention of this respondent that appellant’s action is premature; that there are no alleged legal rights of appellant or duties of respondent to be de*53termined at this stage of the proceedings under the Community Redevelopment Law, and, therefore, there is no justiciable controversy between appellant and respondent to be adjudicated.”
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 27, 1957. Schauer, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.