Legal Opinion
Stoneham v. Rushen
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 24, 1984No. Docket Nos. A021730, A023754PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RACANELLI, P. J.
In these consolidated proceedings, we consider certain questions left undecided in Stoneham v. Rushen (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 729, 734, 737 [188 Cal.Rptr. 130] [Stoneham I] and the validity of a contempt order based upon an alleged noncompliance with the trial court’s mandamus order affirmed in Stoneham I.
In Stoneham I we held that the Director of Corrections (Director) was required to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as codified (Gov. Code, § 11342 et seq.) in promulgating regulations dealing with a newly established standardized classification…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Morris v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Pitts v. PerlussCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Ford Dealers Assn. v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Barrett v. Stanislaus County Employees Retirement Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Masonite Corp. v. County of Mendocino Air Quality Management DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- In Re LuseroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Masonite Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Faunce v. DentonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.