I have discovered several hacked posts on my blog, and there are doubtless many more. I am in the process of reviewing posts and taking out material inserted by the hacker(s).

In the meantime, posts should be read with caution. If you see odd links to other law firms, products, or services, or any other indication that you are reading a hacked post, I would appreciate it very much if you would send me the link to the suspected hacked post. You can email links to me at gregATgregmaylaw.com.

All content on this blog is provided solely for purposes of information and commentary. Posts are not updated to reflect later changes in the law, and may be outdated. No content on this blog constitutes legal advice, and content should neither be construed as or relied upon as such. Content on this blog does not substitute for consultation with an attorney. For legal advice, consult an attorney. Links to external content do not constitute endorsements of the publishers or content.

Administrative Law, Mandamus/Prohibition, Writ Practice

Reviewing State Administrative Agency Decisions

January 18, 2008

If you wanted to find out the scope of review and the standards of review employed in administrative mandate proceedings generally, you could do a lot worse than look at the discussion at pages 13-14 of Schutte & Koerting, Inc. v. Regional Water Quality Control Board, case no. D048830 (4th Dist. Jan. 16, 2008), which sums it up very nicely.