. . . .
Under California law, the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) may discipline any chiropractor who engages in professional misconduct. A chiropractor accused of misconduct is entitled to a hearing before an administrative law judge, whose proposed decision is reviewed by the Board. A chiropractor found to have committed misconduct may be ordered to pay the "reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution of the case," including attorney fees, that the Board incurred "up to the date of the hearing . . . ." ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 317.5.)
. . . .
Hearings are ordinarily held before an administrative law judge employed by the Office of Administrative Hearings. ( Gov. Code, §§ 11502, 11517.) After a hearing, the administrative law judge submits a proposed decision to the Board (id., § 11517, subd. (c)), which may adopt it, reduce the proposed penalty, or, as occurred in this case, reject the proposed decision and decide the case itself. If the Board chooses the latter option, it may base its decision on the record of the hearing before the administrative law judge (as occurred here) or it may take new evidence. (Ibid.) The Board's decisions are subject to judicial review by administrative mandamus. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.)
. . . .
Zuckerman argues that regulation 317.5 is facially unconstitutional. He claims it violates his due process rights by discouraging chiropractors whom the Board has accused of misconduct from requesting a hearing on the charges. We evaluate the merits of a facial challenge by considering [*39] "only the text of the measure itself, not its application to the particular circumstances of an individual." ( Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 1069, 1084, [40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402, 892 P.2d 1145].) A plaintiff challenging the facial validity of a statute "cannot prevail by suggesting that in some future hypothetical situation constitutional problems may possibly arise as to the particular application of the statute." ( Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 180, [172 Cal. Rptr. 487, 624 P.2d 1215].)
. . . .
Zuckerman also argues that the Board's enabling legislation does not authorize regulation 317.5, and that the regulation therefore exceeds the Board's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal summarily rejected the claim, relying on Oranen v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (1999) 77 Cal. App. 4th 258, 261-263 [90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 287], which held that regulation 317.5 is authorized by sections 4 and 10 of the Act. We do not address this issue because it is not within the scope of our order granting the Board's petition for review.
. . . .
Rule 1.200 Format of Citations
Citations to cases and other authorities in all documents filed in the courts must be in the style established by either the California Style Manual or The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, at the option of the party filing the document. The same style must be used consistently throughout the document.
(c) Case citation format
A case citation must include the official report volume and page number and year of decision. The court must not require any other form of citation.
Rule 8.204. Contents and form of briefs
(1) Each brief must:
(A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited;
(B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and
(C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part of the record is submitted in an electronic format, citations to that part must identify, with the same specificity required for the printed record, the place in the record where the matter appears.
. . . .