What appeals can you make from Unemployment Insurance Board decisions?

Useful Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

Rulings on Unemployment Insurance Board Appeals

76-93 of 93 results

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

MAHEM HALIM KALDAS VS. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY

Standard of Review The instant petition is made 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

    Nov 16, 2018

MAHEM HALIM KALDAS VS. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY

Standard of Review The instant petition is made 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

    Nov 16, 2018

DECKTECH INC., HUNTER JAMES, INC., V. REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS CONTRACTORS’ STATE LICENSE BOARD DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

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

    Oct 03, 2018

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

JOHN DOE VS TIMOTHY P WHITE ET AL

Doe also met the criteria of irreparable harm and that a stay would not be against the public interest under CCP section 1094.5(g). On June 27, 2017, the court overruled White’s demurrer challenging his status as a proper Respondent and whether the FAP states a valid cause of action against him. B. 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NICOLE SANDERS VS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION COUNTY OF LA ET

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

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA VS. DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

The party may then seek review ofthe final administrative decision under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. (Ibid.) The rule requiring that a party exhaust its administrative remedies does not apply where an administrative remedy is unavailable or inadequate, or where pursuing the administrative remedy would be futile, idle or useless. (Bollengierv. Doctors Medical Center, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1126.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2018

EMILY SECOR ISMAEL VS. COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING

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

    Sep 11, 2020

EMILY SECOR ISMAEL VS. COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING

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

    Sep 11, 2020

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA VS. DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

The party may then seek review of the final administrative decision under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. (Ibid.) The rule requiring that a party exhaust its administrative remedies does not apply where an administrative remedy is unavailable or inadequate, or where pursuing the administrative remedy would be futile, idle or useless. (Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1126.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2018

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

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

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES

Standard of Review Pursuant to Government Code section 17559, a claimant may commence a proceeding in accordance with Civil Procedure Code section 1094.5 to set aside a decision of the Commission on the ground that the Commission’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The interpretation of statutes is an issue of law for which the court exercises its independent judgment. (See Sacks v. City of Oakland (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1082.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES

Standard of Review Pursuant to Government Code section 17559, a claimant may commence a proceeding in accordance with Civil Procedure Code section 1094.5 to set aside a decision of the Commission on the groimd that the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The interpretation of statutes is an issue of law for which the court exercises its independent judgment. (See Sacks v. City of Oakland (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1082.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

WARREN M LENT ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

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

    May 24, 2018

  • 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

  « 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.