What appeals can you make from Unemployment Insurance Board decisions?

Useful Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

26-50 of 93 results

HOWARD JONES INVESTMENTS LLC VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 595.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2018

HOWARD JONES INVESTMENTS LLC VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Ed. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 595.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2018

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

IAN MAIER VS CITY OF TORRANCE ET AL

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus contesting the City Council’s decision to uphold Plaintiff’s termination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5. (Strader Decl. ¶ 20.) In Opposition, Plaintiff merely reargues the same contentions made in the previous oppositions to the motions to stay and the court finds no reason to alter its prior decision that a stay is warranted.

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2018

LAZY LANDING LLC ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

., � 1094.5, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2014

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

SODA CANYON GROUP VS. COUNTY OF NAPA, ET AL.

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 596-597.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 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

NINFA GUZMAN VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, et al. Judge Mary H. Strobel Hearing: September 8, 2020 BS173455 Tentative Decision on Motion to Vacate Judgment on Petition for Writ of Mandate: DENIED Petitioner Ninfa Guzman (“Petitioner”) moves for an order pursuant to CCP section 473 vacating the judgment entered on May 7, 2019, that denied her petition for writ of administrative mandate. Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“Respondent” or “CUIAB”) opposes the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS DAVE JONES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER [E-FILE]

In Bodinson, an employer sought a traditional writ of mandate to set aside an award of unemployment benefits. Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California Employment Commission (1941) 17 Cal.2d 321. At that time, Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 had not been enacted, so there was no statutory procedure for challenging an agency's decision after an administrative hearing. Bodinson concluded that mandamus relief was proper under the circumstances. Id. at 330.

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS DAVE JONES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER [E-FILE]

In Bodinson, an employer sought a traditional writ of mandate to set aside an award of unemployment benefits. Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California Employment Commission (1941) 17 Cal.2d 321. At that time, Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 had not been enacted, so there was no statutory procedure for challenging an agency's decision after an administrative hearing. Bodinson concluded that mandamus relief was proper under the circumstances. Id. at 330.

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS DAVE JONES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER [E-FILE]

In Bodinson, an employer sought a traditional writ of mandate to set aside an award of unemployment benefits. Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California Employment Commission (1941) 17 Cal.2d 321. At that time, Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 had not been enacted, so there was no statutory procedure for challenging an agency's decision after an administrative hearing. Bodinson concluded that mandamus relief was proper under the circumstances. Id. at 330.

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS DAVE JONES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER [E-FILE]

In Bodinson, an employer sought a traditional writ of mandate to set aside an award of unemployment benefits. Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California Employment Commission (1941) 17 Cal.2d 321. At that time, Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 had not been enacted, so there was no statutory procedure for challenging an agency's decision after an administrative hearing. Bodinson concluded that mandamus relief was proper under the circumstances. Id. at 330.

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS DAVE JONES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER [E-FILE]

In Bodinson, an employer sought a traditional writ of mandate to set aside an award of unemployment benefits. Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California Employment Commission (1941) 17 Cal.2d 321. At that time, Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 had not been enacted, so there was no statutory procedure for challenging an agency's decision after an administrative hearing. Bodinson concluded that mandamus relief was proper under the circumstances. Id. at 330.

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ABC CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION SERVICES INC. VS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA

The Legislature has not provided judicial review of CUIAB reassessment decisions and CCP section 1094.5 does not provide grounds for mandamus review of these decisions. Merchandising Concept Group, Inc. v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, (“Merchandising”) (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1274, 1283. CCP sections 1085 and 1094.5 are unavailable because a refund action is an adequate remedy at law. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JAMES BLANCHARD VS. EDMUND SOTELO IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CITY MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF OXNARD

CCP § 1094.5(a). 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 the findings are not supported by the evidence. CCP § 1094.5(b).

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2013

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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

SETH PAGE VS. UNITED HEALTHCARE

Notice Of Hearing Of Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (Ccp 1094.5) Set for hearing on Monday, August 17, 2009, line 10, PETITIONER SETH PAGE Notice Of Hearing Of Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (CCP 1094.5). Denied. Plaintiff failed to serve Defendant. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2009

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

SETH PAGE VS. UNITED HEALTHCARE

Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (Ccp 1094.5) Set for hearing on Monday, October 26, 2009, line 7, PETITIONER SETH PAGE Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (CCP 1094.5). Denied without prejudice for the same reasons cited on August 24, 2009. That is, there is no showing that plaintiff named the Board of Appeals as the respondent and the Court does not have the complete administrative record. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2009

SETH PAGE VS. UNITED HEALTHCARE

Notice Of Hearing Of Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (Ccp 1094.5) Set for hearing on Monday, August 24, 2009, line 13, PETITIONER SETH PAGE Notice Of Hearing Of Petition For Writ Of Administrative Mandamus (CCP 1094.5). Is denied, without prejudice. Plaintiff fails to provide a proof of service, demonstrate that the responding agency was named and served, and there is no administrative record. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2009

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

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

WAI MAN CHAN VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Second, Plaintiff is seeking administrative mandamus under CCP section 1094.5 but has not lodged the transcript of the underlying hearing. =(302KOPP)

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2009

  « 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.