Bixby v. Pierno
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TOBRINER, Acting C. J.
In this case we are called upon to determine whether a superior court properly refused to exercise its independent judgment in reviewing a decision of the Commissioner of Corporations approving a recapitalization plan. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that the judgment must be affirmed: the trial court properly followed our long established approach to the judicial review of a decision of a statewide non-constitutional agency, and applied to the decision the test of whether or not it was supported by substantial evidence. The trial court correctly found…
2Cases cited85 opinions
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
80 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by471 opinions
- Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Supreme Court · 1974
- People v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELESCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Hensler v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Fukuda v. City of AngelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
466 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.