# Swegle v. State Board of Equalization

> California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1954 · 125 Cal. App. 2d 432

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568844

## Case

- **Full name:** ETHEL I. SWEGLE, Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Respondent
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** May 24, 1954
- **Citations:** 125 Cal. App. 2d 432; 270 P.2d 518; 1954 Cal. App. LEXIS 1902
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dooling
- **Judges:** Kaufman, Dooling
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568844

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568844. Public record. Not legal advice.