18 Cited authorities

  1. Fukuda v. City of Angels

    20 Cal.4th 805 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 485 times
    In Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, our Supreme Court explained that in the "weight of the evidence" test applicable under "independent judgment review," there is "a strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings" which "provides the trial court with a starting point for review-but it is only a presumption, and may be overcome.
  2. Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting

    28 Cal.4th 249 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 401 times
    Concluding that the "discretionary relief provision of section 473 only permits relief from attorney error 'fairly imputable to the client, i.e., mistakes anyone could have made' "; and that " '[c]onduct falling below the professional standard of care, such as failure to timely object or to properly advance an argument, is not therefore excusable' "
  3. Huh v. Wang

    158 Cal.App.4th 1406 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 217 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding attorney's failure to oppose motion for summary judgment because he was "overwhelmed" by work and "disorganized" was not excusable
  4. Bixby v. Pierno

    4 Cal.3d 130 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 626 times
    In Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130 (Bixby), the leading modern case discussing and explaining the independent judgment test, we quoted with approval Drummey's statement that in applying "`independent judgment,'" a trial court must accord a "`strong presumption of... correctness'" to administrative findings, and that the "burden rests" upon the complaining party to show that the administrative "`decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence.'"
  5. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. Cty of Los Angeles

    11 Cal.3d 506 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 469 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Construing requirements of Gov. Code, § 65906 for zoning variances
  6. California Youth Authority v. State Pers. Bd.

    104 Cal.App.4th 575 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 89 times
    Discussing how Gov. Code, § 11425.50, subd. (b) applies to a court's review of a decision of the SPB where the SPB rejected the ALJ's credibility determinations
  7. Mohilef v. Janovici

    51 Cal.App.4th 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 69 times
    Rejecting the argument that taking testimony under oath is a constitutional requirement of an administrative public nuisance hearing
  8. Donley v. Davi

    180 Cal.App.4th 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 39 times
    In Donley, the applicant for an unqualified real estate salesperson license, who had a misdemeanor conviction for willful infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, was issued only a restricted license and petitioned for a writ of mandate.
  9. Alford v. Pierno

    27 Cal.App.3d 682 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 77 times

    Docket No. 30439. September 12, 1972. Appeal from Superior Court of Alameda County, No. 403556, M.O. Sabraw, Judge. COUNSEL Weiss Wald and Robert B. Freedman for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, and Mervin R. Samuel, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent. Thelen, Marrin, Johnson Bridges and Fielding H. Lane for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. OPINION BRAY, J.[fn*] [fn*] Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting under assignment

  10. Sulla v. Bd. of Registered Nursing

    205 Cal.App.4th 1195 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 12 times

    No. A132699. 2012-04-19 Anuncio L. SULLA, Jr., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING, Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Alfredo Terrazas, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Frank H. Pacoe, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Jonathan D. Cooper, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Appellant. Slote & Links, Adam G. Slote and Robert D. Links, San Francisco, for Plaintiff and Respondent. NEEDHAM Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Alfredo Terrazas

  11. Section 1001 - Statements or entries generally

    18 U.S.C. § 1001   Cited 7,386 times   306 Legal Analyses
    Making false statements
  12. Section 473 - Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473   Cited 5,918 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Allowing up to six months to challenge a judgment entered through the moving party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect
  13. Section 753 - Factors to be considered concerning a previous criminal conviction; presumption

    N.Y. Correct. Law § 753   Cited 165 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unfair discrimination of individuals with previous convictions
  14. Section 1395 - Rehabilitation Criteria for Denials and Reinstatements

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16 § 1395

    (a) When considering the denial of a license or registration under sections 480, 2960, or 2960.6 of the Code, or a petition for reinstatement or modification of penalty under section 2962 of the Code, on the ground(s) that the applicant or petitioner has been convicted of a crime, the Board shall consider whether the applicant or petitioner made a showing of rehabilitation if the person completed the criminal sentence without a violation of parole or probation. In making this determination, the Board