§Why CasetextPricing

BOLING v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

Respondent’s Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

15 Cited authorities

  1. Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Blasi

    42 Cal.4th 974 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 89 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding genuine issue of material fact about whether a personal services contract was severable when some services may have been lawfully performed and others unlawfully performed

  2. Larkin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

    62 Cal.4th 152 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 44 times
    Assigning significance to the absence of discussion of an issue within legislative history materials

  3. 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

  4. Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California E. Com

    17 Cal.2d 321 (Cal. 1941)   Cited 247 times
    Noting that mandamus "will be used to correct acts and decisions of administrative agencies which are in violation of the law, where no other adequate remedy is provided"

  5. Cumero v. Public Employment Relations Bd.

    49 Cal.3d 575 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 60 times
    Noting the inherent "close organizational relationship"

  6. Boling v. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.

    10 Cal.App.5th 853 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 5 times

    D069626 D069630 04-11-2017 Catherine A. BOLING et al., Petitioners, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent; City of San Diego et al., Real Parties in Interest. City of San Diego, Petitioner, v. Public Employment Relations Board, Respondent; San Diego Municipal Employees Association et al., Real Parties in Interest. Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak, Kenneth H. Lounsbery, Escondido, James P. Lough and Alena Shamos Escondido, for Petitioners and Real Parties in Interest Catherine A. Boling

  7. Inglewood Teachers Assn. v. Public Emp. Rel. Bd.

    227 Cal.App.3d 767 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 32 times
    Rejecting union argument that agent should be included in definition of employer under EERA, because "[s]ince the Legislature is deemed to be aware of the content of its own statutory enactments, it is a reasonable inference that the Legislature would have included the term agent in the definition of employer under the EERA if it wanted school districts perpetually exposed to liability for any unfair labor practice committed by an agent of a school district"

  8. Banning Teachers Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd.

    44 Cal.3d 799 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 27 times
    In Banning Teachers Ass'n. v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 44 Cal.3d 799, 244 Cal.Rptr. 671, 750 P.2d 313 (Cal. 1988), a teachers' union contended that an administrative board erred when upholding a parity provision between teachers and "classified employees."

  9. Los Angeles County Employees Assn., Local 6 v. County of Los Angeles

    33 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 21 times
    In City Employees Local 660 v. County of Los Angeles, 33 Cal.App.3d 1, 108 Cal.Rptr. 625 (Cal.App. 1973), the issue was whether "caseloads" fell within the statutory boundaries of negotiable matters in collective bargaining.

  10. Dublin Professional Fire Fighters, Local 1 v. Valley Community Services Dist.

    45 Cal.App.3d 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 18 times
    In Dublin Professional Firefighters v. Community Services Dist., 45 Cal.App.3d 116, 119 Cal.Rptr. 182 (1st Dist. 1975), the court, interpreting a similar statute, held that a public agency was obliged to bargain in good faith over assignment of overtime work to temporary employees rather than regular employees previously performing the same work. "The assignment of overtime work to temporary service personnel will have an obvious effect on the workload and compensation of the regular employees...."

  11. 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