Legal Opinion
Medlock Dusters, Inc. v. Dooley
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 4, 1982No. Civ. 19771PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
REYNOSO, J. *
Appellant Medlock Dusters, Inc., petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate after the respondent Director of the Department of Food and Agriculture (Department) imposed a disciplinary suspension against it as a licensed pest control operator. The trial court denied the petition for a writ of mandate and Medlock appeals contending that the statutes and regulation under which it was disciplined are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, and that the findings of fact of the Department are inadequate.
Our holding is two fold. We reject the contention that the statutes and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELESCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- County of Nevada v. MacMillenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Wingfield v. FielderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- County of Nevada v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
3Cited by4 opinions
- Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Holt v. Department of Food & AgricultureCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Diola v. State Board of ControlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Kateen v. Department of Real EstateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985