Carden

Carden v. Board of Registration for Professional Engineers

Good Law
174 Cal. App. 3d 736·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2778·220 Cal. Rptr. 416
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 28, 1985B008832California3,373 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gates, J.

Michael J. Carden appeals from the judgment denying his petition for a peremptory writ of mandate. He contends: “I. The court erred in allowing respondent Board of Registration for Professional Engineers to apply a lengthy apprenticeship period in addition to the nine years of engineering work experience established by statute. II. Respondent had no authority to enlarge the requirements for registration as a fire protection engineer set forth in Business and Professions Code section 6767 and Bulletin 3-75. [III.] The court erred in awarding only half credit to Michael Carden for engagement Nos. 1, 2 and 3 because of administrative work disqualification. [IV.] The Board of Registration for Professional Engineers was re quired to issue a statement of its findings of fact regarding its denial of Michael Carden’s application for licensure as a fire protection engineer.”

The Professional Engineers’ Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6700 et seq.) specifies that “[t]he board [Board of Registration for Professional Engineers] may, by regulation, define the scope of each branch of professional engineering other than civil engineering for which registration is provided under this…

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.