What appeals can you make from Unemployment Insurance Board decisions?

Useful Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

Recent Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

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

VALENCIA VS. BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2019

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

    Jun 07, 2019

ELEVUE INC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

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

    May 30, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2019

CANDACE R SAUNDERS VS 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

    Apr 25, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SANCHEZ VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSUR

Proc., § 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 for review of a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board that the findings are not supported by the evidence is the independent judgment test. (MacGregor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 205, 211-212.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2019

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).

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2019

APS WEST COAST, INC. V. CITY OF BENICIA, ET AL.

. §1094.5(e) provides an exception to this rule, authorizing the court to also consider relevant evidence which was either improperly excluded from the administrative record, or that could not have been produced in the exercise of reasonable diligence, by the party now attempting to rely upon it.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

ERNEST H MORENO VS. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

ERNEST H MORENO VS. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

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).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

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).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

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).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

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).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

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 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).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

  « first    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.