Hirschfield v. Cohen (2022)

Citation: Hirschfield v. Cohen (2022)
Parent Document: Hirschfield v. Cohen (2022)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2022-08-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7859842/hirschfield-v-cohen/ ↗

Full Text

1,614 chars

A.     Standard of Review
       A trial court’s decision to grant or deny declaratory relief is
typically reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Meyer v. Sprint
Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 647; accord, Hott v. College
of Sequoias Community College Dist. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 84, 96
[“‘[w]hether a determination is proper in an action for declaratory
relief is a matter within the trial court’s discretion and the court’s
decision to grant or deny relief will not be disturbed on appeal
unless it is clearly shown its discretion was abused’”].) However,
“[i]n a declaratory relief action where . . . the decisive underlying
facts are undisputed, our review of the propriety of the trial
court’s decision presents a question of law which we review de
novo.” (Hott, at p. 95; accord, Dolan-King v. Rancho Santa Fe
Assn. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 965, 974.) Moreover, the
interpretation of state statutes entails resolution of a pure
question of law, which we also review de novo. (California
Building Industry Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd.
(2018) 4 Cal.5th 1032, 1041 [“We review questions of statutory
construction de novo.”]; accord, Wang v. City of Sacramento Police
Dept. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 372, 378; see Carson Citizens for
Reform v. Kawagoe (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 357, 366 [review of
declaratory relief is generally for abuse of discretion, but where
issue is one of statutory interpretation on undisputed facts, de
novo review is appropriate].)
       Here, the parties agree the material facts are undisputed,
and the appeal presents a question of statutory interpretation we
review de novo.

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text