Chrysler Corp. v. New Motor Vehicle Board

Good Law
12 Cal. App. 4th 621·15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 771·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 32·93 Daily Journal DAR 757·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 378
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 15, 1993D016270California5,137 words

Opinion

Opinion

Todd, J.

On this appeal from a judgment granting a petition of Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) for a peremptory writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, we are presented with a question of statutory construction concerning the directory or mandatory effect, and the meaning of, the Vehicle Code section 3067 phrase: “If the board fails to act within 30 days after such hearing, within 30 days after the board receives a proposed decision where the case is heard before a hearing officer alone, or within such period as may be necessitated by Section 11517 of the Government Code or as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties, then the proposed action shall be deemed to be approved.”

Here, the New Motor . Vehicle Board (Board) commenced processing a decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) conditionally approving a Dodge dealership’s move to a different location by setting the matter for review and consideration at a date within 30 days of the Board’s receipt of the ALJ’s proposed decision. On the 31st day after it received the proposed decision, the Board issued a notice of board action stating that 5 days earlier it had “considered the proposed decision as…

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.