(a) Where the writ is issued for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer, the case shall be heard by the court sitting without a jury. All or part of the record of the proceedings before the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer may be filed with the petition, may be filed with respondent's points and authorities, or may be ordered to be filed by the court. Except when otherwise prescribed by statute, the cost of preparing the record shall be borne by the petitioner. Where the petitioner has proceeded pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 68630) of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Government Code and the Rules of Court implementing that section and where the transcript is necessary to a proper review of the administrative proceedings, the cost of preparing the transcript shall be borne by the respondent. Where the party seeking the writ has proceeded pursuant to Section 1088.5, the administrative record shall be filed as expeditiously as possible, and may be filed with the petition, or by the respondent after payment of the costs by the petitioner, where required, or as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing all or any part of the record has been borne by the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
§ 1094.5.Writ Issued For Purpose of Inquiring Into Validity of Final Administrative Order Or Decision Made In Proceeding Requiring Hearing
Title 1. Of Writs of Review, Mandate, and Prohibition · Chapter 2. Writ of Mandate · Last amended 2012 · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceSection 1094.5 governs administrative mandamus, the procedure for judicial review of a final agency decision reached after a required evidentiary hearing, setting the scope of review for jurisdiction, fair trial, and abuse of discretion, and applying either an independent-judgment or a substantial-evidence standard to the agency's factual findings depending on what kind of case is before the court.
Full Text of § 1094.5
(b) The inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.
(c) Where it is claimed that the findings are not supported by the evidence, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. In all other cases, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), in cases arising from private hospital boards or boards of directors of districts organized pursuant to the Local Health Care District Law (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 32000) of Division 23 of the Health and Safety Code) or governing bodies of municipal hospitals formed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 37600) or Article 8 (commencing with Section 37650) of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4 of the Government Code, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record. However, in all cases in which the petition alleges discriminatory actions prohibited by Section 1316 of the Health and Safety Code, and the plaintiff makes a preliminary showing of substantial evidence in support of that allegation, the court shall exercise its independent judgment on the evidence and abuse of discretion shall be established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence.
(e) Where the court finds that there is relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or that was improperly excluded at the hearing before respondent, it may enter judgment as provided in subdivision (f) remanding the case to be reconsidered in the light of that evidence; or, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, the court may admit the evidence at the hearing on the writ without remanding the case.
(f) The court shall enter judgment either commanding respondent to set aside the order or decision, or denying the writ. Where the judgment commands that the order or decision be set aside, it may order the reconsideration of the case in light of the court's opinion and judgment and may order respondent to take such further action as is specially enjoined upon it by law, but the judgment shall not limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in the respondent.
(g) Except as provided in subdivision (h), the court in which proceedings under this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision pending the judgment of the court, or until the filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment or until the expiration of the time for filing the notice, whichever occurs first. However, no such stay shall be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest. The application for the stay shall be accompanied by proof of service of a copy of the application on the respondent. Service shall be made in the manner provided by Title 4.5 (commencing with Section 405) of Part 2 or Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2. If an appeal is taken from a denial of the writ, the order or decision of the agency shall not be stayed except upon the order of the court to which the appeal is taken. However, in cases where a stay is in effect at the time of filing the notice of appeal, the stay shall be continued by operation of law for a period of 20 days from the filing of the notice. If an appeal is taken from the granting of the writ, the order or decision of the agency is stayed pending the determination of the appeal unless the court to which the appeal is taken shall otherwise order. Where any final administrative order or decision is the subject of proceedings under this section, if the petition shall have been filed while the penalty imposed is in full force and effect, the determination shall not be considered to have become moot in cases where the penalty imposed by the administrative agency has been completed or complied with during the pendency of the proceedings.
(1) The court in which proceedings under this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision of any licensed hospital or any state agency made after a hearing required by statute to be conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act, as set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, conducted by the agency itself or an administrative law judge on the staff of the Office of Administrative Hearings pending the judgment of the court, or until the filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment or until the expiration of the time for filing the notice, whichever occurs first. However, the stay shall not be imposed or continued unless the court is satisfied that the public interest will not suffer and that the licensed hospital or agency is unlikely to prevail ultimately on the merits. The application for the stay shall be accompanied by proof of service of a copy of the application on the respondent. Service shall be made in the manner provided by Title 4.5 (commencing with Section 405) of Part 2 or Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2.
(2) The standard set forth in this subdivision for obtaining a stay shall apply to any administrative order or decision of an agency that issues licenses pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code or pursuant to the Osteopathic Initiative Act or the Chiropractic Initiative Act. With respect to orders or decisions of other state agencies, the standard in this subdivision shall apply only when the agency has adopted the proposed decision of the administrative law judge in its entirety or has adopted the proposed decision but reduced the proposed penalty pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 11517 of the Government Code; otherwise the standard in subdivision (g) shall apply.
(3) If an appeal is taken from a denial of the writ, the order or decision of the hospital or agency shall not be stayed except upon the order of the court to which the appeal is taken. However, in cases where a stay is in effect at the time of filing the notice of appeal, the stay shall be continued by operation of law for a period of 20 days from the filing of the notice. If an appeal is taken from the granting of the writ, the order or decision of the hospital or agency is stayed pending the determination of the appeal unless the court to which the appeal is taken shall otherwise order. Where any final administrative order or decision is the subject of proceedings under this section, if the petition shall have been filed while the penalty imposed is in full force and effect, the determination shall not be considered to have become moot in cases where the penalty imposed by the administrative agency has been completed or complied with during the pendency of the proceedings.
(i) Any administrative record received for filing by the clerk of the court may be disposed of as provided in Sections 1952, 1952.2, and 1952.3.
(j) Effective January 1, 1996, this subdivision shall apply to state employees in State Bargaining Unit 5. For purposes of this section, the court is not authorized to review any disciplinary decisions reached pursuant to Section 19576.1 of the Government Code.
Plain-English Summary
Section 1094.5 is the vehicle for challenging a final decision an agency reached after the kind of proceeding that requires a hearing, requires evidence to be taken, and vests the agency with discretion to find facts. This covers the everyday administrative disputes people bring to court — a professional license revoked or denied, a zoning or land-use decision, a public employee disciplined after a hearing. The court reviews the case sitting without a jury, working from the administrative record, which may be filed with the petition, with the respondent's papers, or as the court orders. The petitioner generally bears the cost of preparing that record, though the statute shifts that cost in a few specific situations.
The scope of review has three parts: whether the agency acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, whether the petitioner got a fair hearing, and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. That third question breaks down further — abuse of discretion is shown if the agency didn't follow the procedure the law requires, if the decision isn't supported by the agency's own findings, or if the findings aren't supported by the evidence.
That last piece is where the statute draws its most consequential line. When a court is authorized by other law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, the court asks whether the findings are supported by the weight of the evidence — meaning the judge weighs the record for itself rather than only checking whether the agency's view wasreasonable. In every other case, the court instead asks only whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence when the whole record is considered. Which standard applies isn't decided by this section itself; it turns on separate law establishing what kind of interest the case involves, and that distinction has generated a great deal of litigation because the two standards can produce different outcomes on the same record.
Subdivision (d) carves out its own rule for certain hospital-related decisions, generally applying the substantial-evidence standard even where independent judgment might otherwise apply — except for a discrimination claim under Health and Safety Code § 1316, where a preliminary evidentiary showing shifts the case back to independent judgment. Later subdivisions address newly available evidence, the form of judgment, stays of the agency's order pending appeal (with a stricter standard for certain licensed hospitals and state agencies acting under the Administrative Procedure Act), disposal of the administrative record, and a narrow carve-out for certain state employee discipline decisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What standard of review applies to a writ of administrative mandamus?
It depends on the type of case. When other law authorizes the court to exercise independent judgment on the evidence, the court asks whether the agency's findings are supported by the weight of the evidence. In all other cases, the court asks only whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
What kinds of agency decisions get reviewed under § 1094.5?
Final decisions reached after a proceeding where a hearing is required, evidence is taken, and the agency has discretion to find facts — common examples include professional license discipline, zoning and land-use rulings, and public employee discipline after a hearing.
What does 'abuse of discretion' mean in an administrative mandamus case?
It's established if the agency didn't proceed in the manner the law requires, if the decision isn't supported by the agency's own findings, or if those findings aren't supported by the evidence under whichever standard of review applies.
Can new evidence be introduced that wasn't part of the administrative hearing?
If the court finds relevant evidence that couldn't have been produced with reasonable diligence, or that was improperly excluded, it may remand the case for reconsideration in light of that evidence, or, in independent-judgment cases, admit the evidence directly at the hearing on the writ.
Can the agency's decision be put on hold while the case is pending?
Yes, generally the court may stay the order or decision pending judgment or appeal unless a stay would be against the public interest; a stricter standard, requiring the agency be unlikely to prevail on the merits, applies to certain licensed hospitals and state agencies acting under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Amendment History
Amended by Stats 2011 ch 296 (AB 1023),s 41, eff. 1/1/2012. Amended by Stats 2008 ch 150 (AB 3042),s 1, eff. 1/1/2009. Amended by Stats 2000 ch 402 (AB 649), s 1, eff. 9/11/2000. Amended September 21, 1999 (Bill Number: AB 1013) (Chapter 446).
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: california writ of administrative mandamusccp 1094.5 administrative mandamus standard of reviewpetition for writ of mandate california how to filesubstantial evidence vs independent judgment california