Dooley

Medlock Dusters, Inc. v. Dooley

Good Law
129 Cal. App. 3d 496·181 Cal. Rptr. 80·1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1342
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 4, 1982Civ. 19771California2,326 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reynoso, J.

Appellant Medlock Dusters, Inc., petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate after the respondent Director of the Department of Food and Agriculture (Department) imposed a disciplinary suspension against it as a licensed pest control operator. The trial court denied the petition for a writ of mandate and Medlock appeals contending that the statutes and regulation under which it was disciplined are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, and that the findings of fact of the Department are inadequate.

Our holding is two fold. We reject the contention that the statutes and regulation are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. However, we agree that the findings of the Department are inadequate. We hold that an administrative decision must clearly set forth the basis, factual and legal, for discipline. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment denying the petition for a writ of administrative mandate and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to issue the writ of mandate remanding the matter to the Department for the issuance of an adequate administrative decision.

A. Administrative Background

The administrative proceedings commenced with an accusation filed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.