What appeals can you make from Unemployment Insurance Board decisions?

Useful Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

Recent Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

JOE HARDESTY VS. CALIFORNIA STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD

Here, the underlying Section 1094.5 petition in Hardesty II (and Hardesty III) challenging the civil penalties is equitable in nature. (WIndlgo Mills v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 596 [mandamus "is an equitable proceeding designed to achieve justice"]; see also Curtin v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 481, 484 [noting that "entitlement to a writ of mandate is largely controlled by equitable principles"].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

JOE HARDESTY VS. CALIFORNIA STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD

Here, the underlying Section 1094.5 petition in Hardesty II (and Hardesty III) challenging the civil penalties is equitable in nature. (Windigo Mills v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 596 [mandamus "is an equitable proceeding designed to achieve justice"]; see also Curtin v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 481, 484 [noting that “entitlement to a writ of mandate is largely controlled by equitable principles”].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

STEWART V. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEAL BOARD

Petitioner filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The claim was denied by the California Employment Development Department on June 30, 2019, which found that petitioner’s resignation to be due to dissatisfaction with the terms of employment. Petitioner filed an appeal with California Unemployment Insurance Board and the administrative law judge affirmed the Department’s determination by decision dated August 15, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

JOSE M FLORES RIVERA VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (f).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JOSE M FLORES RIVERA VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Proc. § 1094.5, subd. (f).) Instead, it is simply directing the Board to decide that appeal on the merits rather than Q dismissing it as untimely.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SABRINA FIELDS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

(CCP § 1094.5(b); see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.) Unemployment benefits of the nature involved here have long been held to be subject to the independent judgment standard of review. (Douglas v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 110, 114.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SANDRA MARTIN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs review of administrative orders. According to that statute, the scope of review is limited to three issues: (1) whether the respondent exceeded or acted without jurisdiction, (2) whether there was a fair trial, and (3) whether there was prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

BLAIR V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

(Code of Civil Procedure, § 1094.5(b).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

MINAKO AMERICA CORPORATION DBA MINCO CONSTRUCTION VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

Standard of Review CCP section 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies. Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15. CCP section 1094.5 does not on its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 811.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC VS. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-SANTA ANA REGION

As a result, the Court of Appeal there found the trial court’s “traditional invocation[]” of CCP § 1094.5(e) to be inapposite. (Ibid.) The same holds true here. The remediation effort at issue is a highly technical action that has been going on for 25 years. It is not a straightforward entitlement hearing like the unemployment benefits proceeding in Windigo Mills.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

FRIENDS OF OCEANO DUNES, INC. V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(e) does provide a limited exception that allows a party to introduce evidence in court that could not have been produced at the original hearing, including evidence arising from events occurring after the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(e); Toyota of Visalia, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881-883; Windigo Mills v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 596-597.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

RICHARD STANGER, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Public Resource Code section 30801 specifically states, in relevant part: “Any aggrieved person shall have a right to judicial review of any decision or action of the commission by filing a petition for a writ of mandate in accordance with Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within 60 days after the decision or action has become final.” (Pub. Res. Code § 30801.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SANDRA MARTIN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

CCP section 1094.5. Court is in receipt of the Administrative Record which the Court has reviewed in its entirety. The Court needs to determine whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion when reviewing an administrative decision of an agency pursuant to CCP section 1094.5 on a petition for writ of mandate. Abuse of discretion must be shown by the Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA VS RICARDO LARA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

CCP §1094.5(b). CCP section 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (“Fukuda”) (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 811. In cases reviewing decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right the trial court exercises independent judgment on the evidence. Bixby v. Pierno, (“Bixby”) (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143; see CCP §1094.5(c).

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KATHY MCANANY VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

CCP section 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (1999)20 Cal.4th 805, 811. In cases reviewing decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right the trial court exercises independent judgment on the evidence. Bixby v. Pierno, (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143. See CCP §1094.5(c). Independent judgement is the appropriate standard for review of a decision by the CUIAB. Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Ins.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VS. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES

There, our Supreme Court held that a new law extending mandatory unemployment insurance coverage to local government employees did not constitute a “program” because it did not impose unique requirements on local governments. “Most private employers in the state already were required to provide unemployment protection to their employees. Extension of this requirement to local governments . . . merely makes the local agencies indistinguishable in this respect from private employers.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VS. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES

There, our Supreme Court held that a new law extending mandatory unemployment insurance coverage to local govemment employees did not constitute a "program" because it did not impose unique requirements on local govemments. "Most private employers in the state already were required to provide unemployment protection to their employees. Extension of this requirement to local govemments . . . merely makes the local agencies indistinguishable in this respect from private employers."

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

SKY POSTERS INC VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

CCP section 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 811. In cases reviewing decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right the trial court exercises independent judgment on the evidence. Bixby v. Pierno, (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143. See CCP §1094.5(c). In all other cases, the substantial evidence standard applies.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ANN DE JONG M.D. VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

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).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2019

ANN DE JONG M.D. VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

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 ifthe respondent "has not proceeded in the manner 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).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2019

EMILY SECOR ISMAEL VS. COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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 ifthe respondent "has not proceeded in the manner 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).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2019

EMILY SECOR ISMAEL VS. COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2019

ACOSTA VS WILL LIGHTBOURNE IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5(b). Where it is claimed that the findings are not supported by the evidence and the case does not involve a fundamental vested right (as contended by respondent), "abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record." Id., § 1094.5 (c); American National Ins. Co. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 603, 607.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JUAN SALAZAR VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

See CCP §1094.5(c). Independent judgement is the appropriate standard for review of a decision by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 774-782. Under the independent judgment test, “the trial court not only examines the administrative record for errors of law but also exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence disclosed in a limited trial de novo.” Id. at 143.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ROGERS VS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES

., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Abuse of discretion occurs if the agency has not proceeded as required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (Ibid.) The applicable standard of review is the independent judgment test when there is a contention that the findings are not supported by the evidence. (MacGregor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 205, 211-212.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

1 2 3 4     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.