Douglas Miller v. County of Santa Cruz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that preclusive effect should only be given to issues which agency resolved and which were properly before it
• holding that an unreviewed commission decision upholding employee’s termination barred subsequent federal constitutional claims, but implying that an employee who has had his termination overturned could file a subsequent lawsuit for damages arising therefrom
• holding the relevant inquiry is “whether the administrative hearing met the requirements of California law such that a California court would have accorded the determination preclusive effect”
• stating that where agency adjudication meets the requirements of Due Process, and de novo judicial review is available, “concerns of comity and finality counsel against denying preclusive effect”
• stating that preclusive effect may be given to an administrative decision where “the agency adjudication meets the requirements of due process, and de novo judicial review is available”
• stating that preclusive effect may be given to an administrative decision where “the agency adjudication meets the requirements of due process, and de novo judicial review is available”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).