38 Cited authorities

  1. Mathews v. Eldridge

    424 U.S. 319 (1976)   Cited 13,158 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the degree of process required depends in part on the protected interest at stake
  2. Board of Regents v. Roth

    408 U.S. 564 (1972)   Cited 13,160 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Goldberg plaintiffs "had not yet shown that they were, in fact, within the statutory terms of eligibility" but that the Court nonetheless "held that they had a right to a hearing at which they might attempt to do so"
  3. Withrow v. Larkin

    421 U.S. 35 (1975)   Cited 2,076 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claimant "must overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators . . . ."
  4. Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal

    17 Cal.2d 280 (Cal. 1941)   Cited 809 times
    Holding that where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and exhausted before the courts will act
  5. Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry

    7 Cal.4th 1215 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 131 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "the [California Board of Forestry] has the ultimate power of approval over a [THP]"
  6. Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach

    48 Cal.App.4th 1152 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 99 times
    In Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 223 (1996), the court looked to the governing statute which stated that a "writ of administrative mandate [may be issued] where an agency has (1) acted in excess of its jurisdiction, (2) deprived the petitioner of a fair hearing, or (3) committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion."
  7. Unnamed Physician v. Board

    93 Cal.App.4th 607 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 76 times
    In Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at page 620, drawing upon a well-established body of case law involving administrative remedies provided by governmental agencies, the court stated that "[a] remedy is not adequate if it does not square with the requirements of due process."
  8. Citizens for Open Govt. v. City

    144 Cal.App.4th 865 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 56 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. C051419. October 11, 2006. Superior Court of San Joaquin County, No. CV026002, Elizabeth Humphreys, Judge. Donald B. Mooney for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann Girard, Jonathan P. Hobbs and Janice D. Magdich for Defendants and Respondents. Remy, Thomas, Moose Manley and James G. Moose for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. OPINION CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J. Citizens for Open Government (Citizens), a non-profit group, filed a petition for writ of mandate against the City

  9. Nightlife Partners v. City of Beverly Hills

    108 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 60 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 "
  10. Nasha v. City of Los Angeles

    125 Cal.App.4th 470 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating court may consider evidence not presented at the hearing if the evidence is relevant to claimed denial of a fair hearing
  11. Section 800

    Cal. Gov. Code § 800   Cited 188 times

    (a) In any civil action to appeal or review the award, finding, or other determination of any administrative proceeding under this code or under any other provision of state law, except actions resulting from actions of the Department of General Services, if it is shown that the award, finding, or other determination of the proceeding was the result of arbitrary or capricious action or conduct by a public entity or an officer thereof in his or her official capacity, the complainant if he or she prevails