Legal Opinion

Kazensky v. City of Merced

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 24, 1998No. F028725PublishedCited by 53 opinions

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

  1. Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Skelly v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Moran v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Hughes v. Board of Architectural ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Thompson v. AsimosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  2. Central Valley General Hospital v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  3. Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial PerformanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Wences v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. Hughes v. Board of Architectural ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998

48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API