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 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

RUBEN NICK RAMIREZ VS UNEMPLOYMENT OF 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

    Dec 12, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DOE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 586, 595.) Petitioner had the burden to produce any relevant documents. Petitioner does not cite any legal authority that the OSC had any duty to obtain the OPHD investigation materials. The court finds the documents were not improperly excluded under CCP section 1094.5(e).

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MEDINA VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

In the case of unemployment benefits, these are generally considered to be both vested and fundamental. Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Bd. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 774. Under the independent judgment test, the trial court is free to reweigh the evidence and inferences to determine if the “correct” result was reached. Candari v. LA Unified School Dist (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 402, 407.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2017

VAXMONSKY V. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256 states, in pertinent part, “An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.” Steinberg v. Unemployment Ins.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2017

ACCUZIP, INC. V. CAL. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS BD.

Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) 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 of Civ. Proc., §1094.5, subd. (c); Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 551, 562.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2017

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

., � 1094.5, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2014

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

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

Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 789, 793 [use of wrong standard constituted error of law necessitating remand]; County of Stanislaus v. Assessment Appeals Bd. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1445, 1450, 1452 [same].) For the foregoing reasons, the State's petition for writ of mandate is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2011

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

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

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

ARTHUR WEBB VS. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

DEFENDANT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD'S DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff is challenging the denial of Employment Development Department benefits. The benefits were denied in case #A0-138442 by defendant on October 27, 2006 and plaintiff did not take a writ pursuant to CCP section 1094.5, from that decision. The decision by Judge Berger in case #1942825 only allowed plaintiff to reopen that case, not the prior case (#1892564/A0-138442).

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2008

  « first    1 2 3 4

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.