Smith v. Regents of University of California
Opinion
Opinion
Caldecott, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying a petition for writ,' of mandamus to direct respondent Regents of the University of California, to set aside the layoff of appellant, Leon Smith, to reinstate him, and to pay back salary.
I
Appellant’s first contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in applying the substantial evidence test in reviewing the proceedings before the Personnel Appeals Committee. He argues that the trend of the law, as evidenced by the holdings of the California Supreme Court in Bixby v. Pierno, 4 Cal.3d 130 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 481 P.2d 242 ], and Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., 11 Cal.3d 28 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 805 , 520 P.2d 29 ], is toward requiring a court to exercise its independent judgment in reviewing decisions of statewide administrative agencies which have been delegated quasi-judicial powers by the state Constitution, if such decisions affect a vested fundamental right. Appellant urges that the contrary holdings of Ishimatsu v. Regents of University of California, 266 Cal.App.2d 854 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 756 ] and Amluxen v. Regents of the University of Cal., 53 Cal.App.3d 27 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 497 ], be reconsidered in…