# Harlow v. Carleson

> California Supreme Court · April 26, 1976 · 16 Cal. 3d 731

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9595454

## Case

- **Full name:** HARLOW HARLOW, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT B. CARLESON, as Director, Etc., Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 26, 1976
- **Citations:** 16 Cal. 3d 731; 129 Cal. Rptr. 298; 548 P.2d 698; 1976 Cal. LEXIS 254
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clark
- **Judges:** Richardson, Clark
- **Cited by:** 43 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/9595454

## Opinion text

CLARK, J., Dissenting.
For the reasons perceptively given us by Chief Justice Gibson in his dissenting opinion in Laisne v. Cal. St. Bd. of Optometry (1942) 19 Cal.2d 831 [ 123 P.2d 457 ], by Justice Traynor in his concurring and dissenting opinion in Dare v. Bd. of Medical Examiners (1943) 21 Cal.2d 790 [ 136 P.2d 304 ] and his dissenting opinion in Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners (1948) 32 Cal.2d 301 [ 196 P.2d 20 ], and by Justice Burke in his concurring and dissenting opinion in Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 481 P.2d 242 ] and his dissenting opinion in Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 805 , 520 P.2d 29 ], I dissent.
California’s trial de novo review of administrative action should be reexamined. (E.g., Travis, Scope of “Independent Judgment” Review (1975) 63 Cal.L.Rev. 27; Note, Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Association: Determining the Scope of Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions in California (1975) 26 Hastings L.J. 1465 ; Gardner & Greenberger, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Responsible Government (1975) 63 Geo.L.J. 7; Forkosch, Judicial De Novo Review of Administrative Quasi-Judicial Fact Determinations (1974) 25 Hastings L.J. 963 ; Molinari, California Administrative Process: A Synthesis Updated (1970) 10 Santa Clara Law. 274; 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise (1958) § 29.01 et seq.; Jaffe, Judicial Review: Question *740 of Law (1956) 69 Harv.L.Rev. 239; McGovney, The California Chaos in Court Review of the Decisions of State Administrative Agencies (1942) 15 So.Cal.L.Rev. 391.)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9595454. Public record. Not legal advice.