Does the fact that the Attorney General called a hearing with live testimony but instead what is called a "documentary-only hearing" undermine its validity?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from State Bd. of Chiro. Exam. v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.4th 142, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 374 (Cal. App. 2007):
The fact this was not a hearing with live testimony, but instead what the Attorney General calls a "documentary" hearing does not undermine its validity. It is not the case that only a trial-like hearing is entitled to dignity. (Saleeby v. State Bar (1985) 39 Cal.3d 547, 565, 216 Cal.Rptr. 367, 702 P.2d 525.) Further, Arbuckle could have included in a mandate petition the claim that the documentary-only hearing violated due process or that some irregularity
[55 Cal.Rptr.3d 383]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
