Legal Opinion
Mason v. RETIREMENT BD. CITY & COUNTY SF
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 10, 2003No. A098756PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
JONES, P. J.
Appellants in this action are individuals who are classified as “miscellaneous employees” 1 under three retirement plans set forth in the charter of the City and County of San Francisco. They and labor organizations representing some of them filed lawsuits challenging the methodology used by the Retirement Board of the City and County of San Francisco to calculate their retirement benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment to the board, ruling it had determined appellants’ benefits correctly. Appellants contend the trial court misinterpreted San Francisco’s charter…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Whitcomb Hotel, Inc. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Resources BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park & Open-Space DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- City of San Diego v. ShapiroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Sacks v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Alameda Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Alameda Cnty. Employees' Ret. Assn., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Woodland Park Management, LLC v. City of East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.