Dysart v. Daugherty

California Court of Appeal

Dysart v. Daugherty

62 P.2d 612, 17 Cal. App. 2d 525, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 608

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 16, 1936

DocketCiv. 11133

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 62 P.2d 612 (Dysart v. Daugherty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dysart v. Daugherty, 62 P.2d 612, 17 Cal. App. 2d 525, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIL, P. J.

Appellant, who was the petitioner in the trial court, sought a writ of review for the purpose of determining the validity of an order of the Commissioner of Corporations. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained without leave to amend and judgment entered accordingly. This is an appeal from said judgment.

A writ of review will lie only to review the exercise of judicial functions. (Sec. 1068, Code Civ. Proc.) The legislature is without power, in the absence of a constitutional provision authorizing same, to confer judicial functions upon the respondent or any other state-wide administrative agency of similar character. (Constitution of California, art. VI, sec. 1.) Our courts have determined that the Commissioner of Corporations is authorized to exercise discretionary administrative functions but is without authority to exercise judicial functions. (Dominguez Land Corp. v. Daugherty, 196 Cal. 468, 482 [238 Pac. 703]; Schwab-Wilson etc. Corp. v. Daugherty, 15 Cal. App. (2d) 701 [59 Pac. (2d) 1057]; Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 6 Cal. (2d) 557 [59 Pac. (2d) 119].) It necessarily follows that this proceeding for a writ of review lacks an essential element and that the demurrer was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Wood, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRAIL, P. J.

Appellant, who was the petitioner in the trial court, sought a writ of review for the purpose of determining the validity of an order of the Commissioner of Corporations. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained without leave to amend and judgment entered accordingly. This is an appeal from said judgment.

A writ of review will lie only to review the exercise of judicial functions. (Sec. 1068, Code Civ. Proc.) The legislature is without power, in the absence of a constitutional provision authorizing same, to confer judicial functions upon the respondent or any other state-wide administrative agency of similar character. (Constitution of California, art. VI, sec. 1.) Our courts have determined that the Commissioner of Corporations is authorized to exercise discretionary administrative functions but is without authority to exercise judicial functions. (Dominguez Land Corp. v. Daugherty, 196 Cal. 468, 482 [238 Pac. 703]; Schwab-Wilson etc. Corp. v. Daugherty, 15 Cal. App. (2d) 701 [59 Pac. (2d) 1057]; Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 6 Cal. (2d) 557 [59 Pac. (2d) 119].) It necessarily follows that this proceeding for a writ of review lacks an essential element and that the demurrer was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Wood, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 P.2d 612, 17 Cal. App. 2d 525, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dysart-v-daugherty-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack