All notes for Subtopic 1105.09000 – Opinion Evidence and Expert Testimony
|Decision||Description||PERC Vol.||PERC Index||Date|
City of Palo Alto|
1105.09000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Opinion Evidence and Expert TestimonyQuestions of statutory interpretation are not a proper subject for expert witness testimony. more or view all topics or full text.
City of Palo Alto * * * SUPERSEDED by City of Palo Alto (2017) PERB Decision No. 2388a-M|
1105.09000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Opinion Evidence and Expert TestimonyNeither Evidence Code section 801 nor PERB regulations support the City’s proffer of, and request for a continuance to adduce, expert witness testimony. Evidence Code section 801 provides, in pertinent part: If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is: (a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact; and (b) Based on matter (including his special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education) perceived by or personally known to the witness or made known to him at or before the hearing, whether or not admissible, that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his testimony relates, unless an expert is precluded by law from using such matter as a basis for his opinion. The proffered expert testimony was not appropriate under Evidence Code section 801 (a). The question before the ALJ was the statutory construction of MMBA section 3507, as to which the City’s proffered expert testimony was neither “material” nor “relevant” within PERB Regulation 32176. Therefore, the ALJ properly excluded the proffered expert testimony and did not abuse his discretion thereby. more or view all topics or full text.
Fremont Union Union High School District|
1105.09000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Opinion Evidence and Expert TestimonyStatements in a grievance which constitute the Association's legal opinion that the District violated state laws is not admissible evidence; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
Pittsburg Unified School District|
1105.09000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Opinion Evidence and Expert TestimonyPurpose of requesting reconsideration on ground of "newly discovered evidence" is to permit Board to have access to evidence unavailable at time of hearing which could effect the underlying determination that the respondent acted unlawfully. more or view all topics or full text.