Sipper v. Urban’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners (1948), 20 Cal. 4th 805 - Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999)
74 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 13 Cal. 2d 75 - Drummey v. State Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers · Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners · 19 Cal. 2d 831 - Laisne v. California State Board of Optometry · 52 Cal. App. 2d 184 - Gossman v. Gossman · 13 Cal. 2d 741 - McDonough v. Goodcell
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where there is neither a constitutional nor statutory requirement that a court make the determination of fact or reweigh the evidence upon which the administrative agency acted, the duty of the judicial branch is adequately fulfilled by a review upon certiorari which extends to the questions of law involved. A review upon the issues of law would, of course, include such questions as whether the agency has regularly pursued the authority vested in it, whether it had acted arbitrarily and whether there is substantial evidence to support its determinations of fact. Our decisions have recognized that administrative rulings on questions of law cannot be accorded finality. Such questions may be determined conclusively only by a court exercising constitutional judicial power. [Citing authority.] Upon issues of fact, however, where there is no constitutional requirement that the facts be judicially determined and no statutory indication that the review was meant to extend to a re-examination of questions of fact, the court should uphold the administrative determination unless it is found that there is no substantial evidence to support the finding. ... The proceeding in mandamus in the present case should be treated as a proceeding in certiorari [citing authority], and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The petitioner is not entitled to the [issuance of an alternative] writ [of mandate] as a matter of right, but its issuance involves consideration of its effect in promoting justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the burden shall rest upon the petitioner to support his challenge affirmatively, competently, and convincingly”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.