Appellant doctor brought a mandamus action against respondent California Board of Medical Examiners, seeking to set aside an order of the Board suspending the doctor's medical license for unprofessional conduct under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2383 after the doctor was convicted of federal income tax evasion. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) entered a judgment dismissing the action. The doctor appealed.
The doctor was convicted upon a nolo contendere plea of two felony counts of income tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C.S. § 145(b). The board suspended the doctor's license on the grounds that his felony convictions involved crimes of moral turpitude that constituted unprofessional conduct under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2383. The trial San Diego business law sustained the board's demurrer and dismissed the doctor's mandamus action. The doctor argued that his conviction of tax evasion based upon a nolo contendere plea did not involve a crime of moral turpitude and could not form the basis for the suspension of his license under § 2383. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that the doctor failed to state a cause of action where § 2383 clearly provided for the suspension of a medical license upon the conviction of a felony, regardless of whether the felony was a crime of moral turpitude. Section 2383 was not a prohibited ex post facto law because the revocation or suspension of a license to practice medicine was not penal in nature. The board did not abuse its discretion by imposing a one-year suspension.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in dismissing the doctor's mandamus action.
Petitioner realtor challenged an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which sustained the demurrer that respondent real estate commissioner filed in the realtor's action for a writ of mandate to compel the renewal of his broker's license and dismissed the proceeding.
The trial court sustained the demurrer that a real estate commissioner filed in a realtor's action for a writ of mandate to compel the commissioner to renew his broker's license and dismissed the proceeding. The court reversed that judgment on appeal. The court held that the proceeding that that commissioner held in which the realtor's application to renew his license was denied exceeded the commissioner's statutory authority. The court also reasoned that the Business and Professions Code did not provide for the commissioner to initiate or to conduct an inquiry as to the fitness of the realtor to be a licensed broker after his original application for a license was approved and that the realtor was not found to be guilty of any act that would have justified his original license's cancellation. The court further stated that the realtor was wrongfully denied of a license to which he was entitled and that he was not required to subject himself to the possible hazard of a denial of an application for a new license because he was not guilty of conduct that would have warranted an order of suspension or revocation of his original license.
The court reversed a judgment that sustained the demurrer that the real estate commissioner filed in the realtor's mandamus action to compel the renewal of his real estate broker's license and that dismissed the proceeding.
