Opinion

Swegle v. State Board of Equalization

  • 125 Cal. App. 2d 432
  • 270 P.2d 518
  • 1954 Cal. App. LEXIS 1902
Court
California Court of Appeal
Filed
May 24, 1954
Status
Published
Author
Dooling
On the bench
Kaufman, Dooling
Cited by
22 cases

The opinion

DOOLING, J.

I concur. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the inference that solicitation by known prostitutes was permitted in this tavern. I do not understand that this court, is holding that the failure to object to hearsay evidence in an administrative proceeding to which section 11513, Government Code, is applicable would result in the hearsay evidence alone being sufficient to support a finding. The section itself makes hearsay admissible and hence no effective objection to its introduction could be interposed, and the section itself limits the probative value of such evidence: it “shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil action.” I want to make it perfectly clear that this limitation on the effect of hearsay evidence in proceedings to which section 11513 is applicable, in my judgment, is not dependent upon whether or not an objection is made to its admission.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied July 21, 1954.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.