Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF COLTON <br />AGENDA REPORT <br />For Council Meeting of February 4 , 1992 <br />TO: MAYOR, CITY COUN IL, AND CITY MANAGER <br />FROM: CITY ATTORNEY <br />RE: INCORPORATION' OF CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE <br />SECTION 1094.6 <br />The City often acts by means of administrative decision <br />or order following a hearing, where evidence is given and the <br />determination of facts is vested in the City Council or one of the <br />City's boards or commissions. Under California Code of Civil <br />Procedure Section 1094.5, an aggrieved party may seek judicial <br />review of such administrative actions. A court's review of such <br />decisions is limited to an assessment of whether the City acted <br />within its jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and <br />whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Section <br />1094. 5 (b) . [All statutory references are to the California Code of <br />Civil Procedure.] <br />The statute defining the City's function may specify the <br />time within which an aggrieved party may file for a writ of mandate <br />seeking review of its administrative actions. If no other period <br />is specified, the statute of limitations for ordinary civil actions <br />applies (usually three or four years for administrative mandamus <br />proceedings). <br />Section 1094.6 allows the City to adopt, by resolution or <br />ordinance, a ninety -day statute of limitations for review of <br />administrative "final decisions," which are a result of evidentiary <br />FILE NO. _ �� :''.�,................. qa <br />