Kazensky v. City of Merced
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ARDAIZ, P. J.—
Introduction
It has long been the rule that “[t]he penalty imposed by an administrative body will not be disturbed in mandamus proceedings unless an abuse of discretion is demonstrated” and that “[njeither an appellate court nor a trial court is free to substitute its discretion for that of the administrative agency concerning the degree of punishment imposed.” (Barber v. State Personnel Bd. (1976) 18 Cal.3d 395, 404 [134 Cal.Rptr. 206, 556 P.2d 306].)" In part II of this opinion we apply this well-established rule, and we conclude that the City of Merced did not abuse its…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Skelly v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Moran v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Hughes v. Board of Architectural ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- Thompson v. AsimosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Central Valley General Hospital v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial PerformanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Wences v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Hughes v. Board of Architectural ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.