§Why CasetextPricing

BOLING v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

Real Parties in Interest, San Diego Municipal Employees Association; Deputy City Attorneys Association of San Diego; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 127; and San Diego City Firefighters Local 145, IAFF, AFL-CIO, Opening Brief on the Merits

50 Cited authorities

  1. Meyer v. Grant

    486 U.S. 414 (1988)   Cited 549 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the circulation of a petition seeking a ballot initiative is an "interactive communication concerning political change that is appropriately described as ‘core political speech’ "

  2. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 705 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  3. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 640 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

  4. Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District v. California Public Employment Relations Board

    35 Cal.4th 1072 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 188 times
    Holding that only a prospective application of the administratively prescribed statute of limitations such that the limitation period "commences on the effective date of the statute, rather than on the date the cause of action accrued" would be fair

  5. Pereira v. County of Santa Clara

    113 Cal.App.4th 549 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 162 times
    Holding that a principal cannot be held liable for an actual agent who acts beyond the scope of his actual or ostensible authority

  6. Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside

    7 Cal.4th 525 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 153 times
    Determining that California's conflict of interest statute did not preclude a wage and hours suit by county attorneys against their public employer

  7. 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

  8. Angle v. Miller

    673 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 46 times
    Holding referendum regulations imposing subject-matter restrictions are subject to heightened scrutiny

  9. County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission

    56 Cal.4th 905 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing cognizable privacy interest in home address and telephone number

  10. 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.’ "

  11. Section 3

    Cal. Const. art. XI § 3   Cited 93 times

    (a) For its own government, a county or city may adopt a charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the question. The charter is effective when filed with the Secretary of State. A charter may be amended, revised, or repealed in the same manner. A charter, amendment, revision, or repeal thereof shall be published in the official state statutes. County charters adopted pursuant to this section shall supersede any existing charter and all laws inconsistent therewith. The provisions of a charter

  12. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,157 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or