§Why CasetextPricing

TODAY'S FRESH START v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

Los Angeles County Office of Education and Los Angeles County Board of Education, Answer Brief on the Merits

32 Cited authorities

  1. Mathews v. Eldridge

    424 U.S. 319 (1976)   Cited 15,714 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"

  2. Withrow v. Larkin

    421 U.S. 35 (1975)   Cited 2,403 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claimant "must overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators . . . ."

  3. In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke

    164 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 822 times
    Affirming $64,500 sanctions order against Kathey for prosecuting contempt motion without any factual or legal basis and pursuit of a meritless motion for new trial

  4. Bowers v. Bernards

    150 Cal.App.3d 870 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 840 times
    Reviewing court considers entire record

  5. Roddenberry v. Roddenberry

    44 Cal.App.4th 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 462 times
    In Roddenberry, the issue was whether a marital settlement agreement entitled the plaintiff to her former husband’s postdivorce profits on Star Trek. (Roddenberry, at p. 640.)

  6. Skelly v. State Personnel Bd.

    15 Cal.3d 194 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 766 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a physician in the state Department of Health Care Services who was a “permanent civil service employee” had a protected property interest in his continued employment

  7. Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation

    39 Cal.4th 1164 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 237 times
    Holding that public school districts were not "persons" subject to suit under FCA because the enumerated list of covered "persons" under the statute does not include any words associated with public entities

  8. People v. Peevy

    17 Cal.4th 1184 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 134 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting defendant's attempts in the appellate court to present evidence of widespread police misconduct

  9. Haas v. County of San Bernardino

    27 Cal.4th 1017 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 116 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Haas, the county's procedure for appointing administrative hearing officers was found to violate due process because the prosecuting authority selected its adjudicator at will and must therefore "be presumed to favor its own rational self-interest by preferring those who tend to issue favorable rulings."

  10. Nightlife Partners v. City of Beverly Hills

    108 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 91 times
    Observing that combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions is "fraught" with problems, especially where "these dual functions were not held by different sections of a single office, but by a single individual "

  11. Section 11965 - Definitions

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5 § 11965

    For the purposes of Articles 1, 2 and 2.5, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "Chartering authority" means the entity that grants a school's charter and includes the following: (1) "County chartering authority" means a county board of education that has granted a school's charter. In making specific the provisions of Education Code section 47607(i)(1), these regulations use the term "county chartering authority" where Education Code section 47607(i)(1) uses the term "county board of education

  12. Section 11968.5.2 - Charter Revocation

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5 § 11968.5.2

    This section sequentially sets forth procedures the chartering authority and the charter school's governing body as described in the school's charter shall complete for the revocation of a school's charter pursuant to Education Code section 47607, except for charter revocation when the violation constitutes a severe and imminent threat to the health or safety of pupils which is subject to section 11968.5.3 rather than this section. (a) At least 72 hours prior to any board meeting in which a chartering

  13. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer