We really do not target these problems within opinion
FN cuatro. The Board tends to make no assertion inside attract you to administrative mandate is not an appropriate solution nor that separate wisdom shot was inapplicable. I manage mention, but not, that a couple of criteria of opinion wherein an attempt courtroom ratings an administrative agency’s findings, this new good-sized facts test and this new separate view take to, concern only the report about informative findings. (Strumsky v. Hillcrest County Personnel Old-age Assn. (1974) eleven Cal. three dimensional twenty eight, 44-forty-five [112 Cal. 805, 520 P.2d 30].) New extent regarding opinion does not apply to overview of management determinations which are not factual findings. (Zink v. City of Sausalito (1977) 70 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 662, 665 [139 Cal. 59].) Where, as right here, the information commonly in conflict, it is unimportant towards the results whether the good evidence otherwise the new separate judgment shot enforce.
FN 5. The expression “residence” was a phrase and no special meaning, generally requiring framework in regard to the statute otherwise purpose where its operating. (Get in re also Morelli (1970) 11 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 819, 830 [91 Cal. 72].) It is frequently reported to be synonymous with “domicile.” (Pick Elec. Password, 2 hundred, subd. (a);Burt v. Scarborough (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 817, 820 [17 Cal. 146 usps loans, 366 P.2d 498] (construing “residence” to own place purposes).) In the event the phrase “residence” was certified because of the such as for instance terms given that “actual” otherwise “real,” its used in a sense that would preclude men regarding establishing multiple household, and the household ought to be the dominant place of residence. (See the bodies discussed supra, and seeBurt v. 2d on p. 820.)
(more…)