Tom

Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. Tom

Good Law
181 Cal. App. 3d 283·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1611·226 Cal. Rptr. 339
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 1986B009330California5,249 words

Opinion

Opinion

McCLOSKY, J.

Appellant Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc. (hereafter BR) appeals from that part of the judgment of the Los Angeles Superior Court which denied petitioner’s “Verified Petition for Depositions of Robert Davenport, Thomas J. Amy and Rodney K. Vincent” after the Commissioner of Corporations (commissioner) filed an accusation against BR.

Contentions

Appellant contends that (1) the commissioner abused his discretion by denying petitioner (appellant herein) the opportunity to obtain testimony relevant to the admissibility and weight of the only evidence alleged in support of the accusation and to obtain evidence in mitigation, asserting that (a) BR has a right to challenge the commissioner’s proposed use of judicial notice and asserting further that (b) BR is entitled to obtain and present evidence in mitigation; and (2) the procedure for obtaining compulsory process for out-of-state witnesses embodied in Government Code section 11511 is unconstitutional as a violation of due process, both on its face and as applied in these proceedings, asserting that (a) Government Code section 11511 is unconstitutional on its face because it vests the commissioner with discretion to determine…

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.