What appeals can you make from Unemployment Insurance Board decisions?

Useful Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

51-75 of 93 results

LAUREN NICOLE ANDRES VS CA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

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

    Mar 01, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE VS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 779, fn. 5; Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 144 (“In determining whether the right is fundamental the courts do not alone weigh the economic aspect of it, but the effect of it in human terms and the importance of it to the individual . . . .”)

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2018

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

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

BLAIR V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

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

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

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

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

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

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

RICH V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

(Code of Civil Procedure, § 1094.5(c).) “When a mandamus proceeding challenges an administrative decision affecting a fundamental vested right (such as the right to disability retirement benefits at issue here), the trial court must independently review the agency's findings to determine if they are supported by the weight of the evidence. (Welch, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 16, 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 340; Code Civ. Proc., section 1094.5, subd.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2018

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

JAMES RUDROFF VS CITY OF WEST COVINA ET AL

Administrative Mandamus 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

    Apr 05, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

See CCP §1094.5(c). An administrative decision imposing discipline on a professional licensee is decided under the independent judgment standard. Griffiths v. Superior Court, (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 757, 767. This case involves uncontested facts, and the court need not review the accuracy of the Hearing Officer’s fact findings. The court exercises independent judgment as to questions of law. Lanigan v. City of Los Angeles, (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1029; see also Simpson v. Unemployment Ins. Comp.

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2018

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

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

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

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

XXXXXXXX A XXXXX VS. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

Most of CDCR’s extra-record evidence deals with a related case (34-2015-80002137) involving the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s denial of xxxxx’s application for unemployment benefits. The merits of that decision are not at issue here. The court thus did not rely on this extra-record evidence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

DECKTECH INC., HUNTER JAMES, INC., V. REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, ET AL.

Proc., § 1094.5(b).) In cases such as this, where “the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5 (c); Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 562.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF S CALIF VS BARRY WINOGRAD

The decision of the hearing officer can be appealed pursuant to CCP section 1094.5. Id. 2. MWD’s Administrative Code MWD’s Admin.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DEACON CORP VS LABOR COMMISSIONER STATE OF CALIFORNIA 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 27, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  « 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.