Bonham v. McConnell
| Decision Date | 21 October 1955 |
| Citation | 288 P.2d 502,45 Cal.2d 304 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | Carl Herschel BONHAM, Petitioner and Appellant, v. F. Britton McCONNELL, as Insurance Commissioner of the State of California, Respondent. S. F. 19337. |
Keith, Creede & Sedgwick and John S. Howell, San Francisco, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Harold B. Haas, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The Insurance Commissioner revoked Bonham's licenses to act as insurance broker, insurance agent and life and disability agent upon making fifteen findings that Bonham was guilty of misconduct, consisting of wilfully inserting false answers in applications for insurance and knowingly misrepresenting the nature and terms of the policies he was offering. The superior court, after reviewing the record of the administrative proceeding and exercising its independent judgment on the evidence, found that three of the fifteen findings were not supported but it upheld the other twelve and concluded that they were sufficient to sustain the action taken by the commissioner. A writ of mandate to set aside the order of revocation was denied, and Bonham has appealed from the judgment.
There is no claim that the wrongdoing of which the court found Bonham guilty is not established by the evidence or is not sufficient to warrant revocation of his licenses. The sole question is whether the court erred in failing to remand the case to the commissioner for reconsideration of the penalty to be imposed.
Under section 1731 of the Insurance Code, the commissioner has been vested with discretion to revoke or suspend licenses. While any action taken by him may, of course, be judicially reviewed to determine whether the charges upon which it is based are supported by the evidence, his decision regarding the appropriate penalty should not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion. He should not be precluded from exercising his discretion either initially or where, as here, some of his findings of misconduct are upheld on judicial review and others are not. Where some of the findings are not supported by the evidence, it is obvious that his discretion has been exercised under a misconception as to the extent of the licensee's misconduct. If the case is not remanded, the commissioner will not be afforded an opportunity to exercise his discretion in the light of the established facts and thus perform the function entrusted to him by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center
...a "real doubt" as to whether the same action would have been taken upon a proper assessment of the evidence. (See Bonham v. McConnell (1955) 45 Cal.2d 304, 306, 288 P.2d 502; Cooper v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners (1950) 35 Cal.2d 242, 252, 217 P.2d 630; see also English v. City of Long B......
-
Vollstedt v. City of Stockton
... ... (Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center (1980) 27 Cal.3d 614, 635, 166 Cal.Rptr. 826, 614 P.2d [220 Cal.App.3d 278] 258; Bonham v. McConnell (1955) 45 Cal.2d 304, 306, 288 P.2d 502; Cooper v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, supra, 35 Cal.2d 242, 252, 217 P.2d 630.) Here, ... ...
-
Richardson v. Board of Supervisors
...disturbed absent a determination that the penalty fixed was grossly excessive or a manifest abuse of discretion. (Bonham v. McConnell (1955) 45 Cal.2d 304, 306, 288 P.2d 502; Kirkpatrick v. Civil Service Com. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 930, 933-934, 172 Cal.Rptr. 405; Zink v. City of Sausalito (......
-
Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance
...of penalty. (Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center [1980] 27 Cal.3d 614, 635, 166 Cal.Rptr. 826, 613 P.2d 1245; Bonham v. McConnell [1955] 45 Cal.2d 304, 306, 288 P.2d 502; Cooper v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners [1950] 35 Cal.2d 242, 252, 217 P.2d The findings held improper in this opinion ......