In California Optometric Assn. v. Lackner (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 500, the trial court granted declaratory relief invalidating regulations fixing rates for optometric services and eye appliances and specifying the nature of the proceeding necessary for the adoption of valid regulations to include the right of cross-examination and opportunity for rebuttal. Justice Friedman surveyed the requirements of the act and wrote: "The trial court's fixed directions for cross-examination and rebuttal are . . . erroneous. No statutory or decisional doctrine establishes ineluctable rights of cross-examination and rebuttal at quasi-legislative hearings . . . . Decisions requiring or dispensing with cross-examination at quasi-legislative hearings vary with the governing statutes and turn also upon the kind of evidence, whether factual or argumentative. The clause in section 11425 . . . quoted above which permits the agency to proceed without opportunity for oral presentation is quite inconsistent with unyielding rights of cross-examination and rebuttal." ( Id., at pp. 507-508.) "Relative to rebuttal opportunities, they sought a middle ground between multilateral rebuttal among the contending parties and their legitimate need to confront the body of data upon which the agency intends to act. They meant that the agency may not utilize the public proceeding as a facade for a private decision resting upon privately acquired data. They meant that post-hearing evidence, if any, must be incorporated in an identified body of evidence and preserved for possible judicial review." ( Id., at p. 510.)