California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Rolfe v. Munro, 165 Cal.App.2d 726, 332 P.2d 404 (Cal. App. 1958):
While it would have been the better practice to have ruled upon appellants' objections either prior to or at the time of the hearing, appellants did not make any point of the department's failure to do so at the time that the accusation was brought on for hearing; did not express surprise at the evidence adduced; did not request a continuance to meet the issues presented; and did not, before the hearing date, move for a continuance upon the ground that their objections had not been ruled on. Under the circumstances, it can not be said that appellants were prejudiced by the failure to rule on the objections to the pleadings, each count being sufficient to put appellants on notice of the charge being made against them. As was said in Wright v. Munro, 144 Cal.App.2d 843, 848, 301 P.2d 997, 1000: 'In these administrative proceedings the courts are more interested with fair notice to the accused than they are to adherence to the technical rules of pleading.' We are, therefore, of the opinion that the trial court found correctly that the department did not commit prejudicial error in failing to rule on the written objections of appellants. We believe also that the licensees, who were represented by able and experienced counsel, waived their objections to the failure of the department to rule on them prior to the hearing by going to trial on the merits.
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.