Legal Opinion
Lam v. Bureau of Security & Investigative Services
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 23, 1995No. C017296PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SPARKS, J.
After the Department of Consumer Affairs (Department) revoked his locksmith’s permit, plaintiff Sammy Lam filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) to overturn the Department’s decision. The trial court denied his petition. On appeal, plaintiff contends the Department’s actions were barred by laches, and further suggests that revocation of his permit was unwarranted. We shall affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background 1
In February 1989, Theresa Randall locked her keys in her car. Her companion called Fairfield Safe & Lock, a company owned…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Borror v. Department of InvestmentCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Cadilla v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- In Re Marriage of ModnickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Kearl v. Board of Medical Quality AssuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- California Real Estate Loans, Inc. v. WallaceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kazensky v. City of MercedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Frankel v. Board of Dental ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Krolikowski v. San Diego City Employees' Ret. Sys., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Green v. Board of Dental ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Hughes v. Board of Architectural ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.