§Why CasetextPricing

LOS ANGELES, CITY OF v. S.C. (ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION)

Petitioner’s Answer to Petition for Review

31 Cited authorities

  1. Glendale City Employees' Assn., Inc. v. City of Glendale

    15 Cal.3d 328 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 183 times
    Stating that once an MOU is approved by a governmental body, it becomes a binding agreement

  2. Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California

    25 Cal.4th 287 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 80 times   1 Legal Analyses

    S078828 Filed April 5, 2001 Appeal from the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BS041545, Robert H. O'Brien, Judge. Ct.App. 2/1, Review Granted, 70 Cal.App.4th 1525, Rehearing Granted. Law Offices of William D. Ross, William D. Ross and Carol B. Sherman for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel (Los Angeles) and Stephen R. Morris, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants

  3. Professional Engineers in California Govt. v. Schwarzenegger

    50 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the argument the governor had the unilateral authority to implement a mandatory furlough program

  4. County of Riverside v. Superior Court

    30 Cal.4th 278 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 61 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Legislature has power to legislate limited only by Constitution

  5. Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo

    12 Cal.3d 608 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 116 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608, 116 Cal.Rptr. 507, 526 P.2d 971, we rejected a nondelegation challenge to a Vallejo city charter provision that permitted an arbitral board to resolve disputed terms of employment after considering " ‘all factors relevant to the issues from the standpoint of both the employer and the employee, including the City's financial condition.’ "

  6. County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (Sonoma County Law Enforcement Assn.)

    173 Cal.App.4th 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that where one offensive word was the subject of much debate before enactment, that word “could not be severed from the remainder of the legislation”

  7. San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City & County of San Francisco

    38 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 31 times
    Holding "necessary" in context of Charter provision was intended "in its broader sense, i.e., ‘that which is ... convenient, useful, appropriate, suitable, proper or conducive’ "

  8. United Transportation Union v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist.

    7 Cal.App.4th 804 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 40 times

    Docket No. B058211. June 23, 1992. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BS005892, Robert W. Zakon, Temporary Judge. Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21. COUNSEL Lawrence Drasin for Plaintiff and Appellant. Suzanne B. Gifford, Jeffrey J. Lyon, Richard A. Katzman and Sharon G. Sanders for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION CROSKEY, J. In this appeal we are asked to determine whether a controversy which arose between a labor organization and an employer concerning

  9. Posner v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc.

    56 Cal.2d 169 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 98 times
    In Posner v. Grunwald–Marx, Inc. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 169, 14 Cal.Rptr. 297, 363 P.2d 313(Posner), a union sought to compel the employer to arbitrate questions of eligibility for vacation and holiday pay pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.

  10. United Firefighters of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles

    231 Cal.App.3d 1576 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 32 times
    In United Firefighters, it was the party opposing arbitration which contended that the party who had petitioned for arbitration was not covered by the arbitration provision he sought to enforce, and thus that he lacked standing to bring the petition.

  11. Section 128 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 128   Cited 1,039 times
    In Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), which directs us to accept a stipulation of the parties for reversal only if we find: (1) "[t]here is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal," and (2) "[t]he reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement."

  12. Section 3528 - Law respects form

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3528   Cited 172 times
    Stating maxim of jurisprudence that "[t]he law respects form less than substance"

  13. Section 3504.5 - Notice of ordinance, rule, regulation affecting scope of representation; discrimination as to health benefit plan participation

    Cal. Gov. Code § 3504.5   Cited 35 times
    Requiring that notice to an employee organization of any ordinance, rule, resolution, or regulation affecting it be provided by "the governing body of a public agency, and boards and commissions designated by law or by the governing body of a public agency"

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer