Legal Opinion
Acosta v. Brown
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 30, 2013No. A132426PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KLINE, P. J.
Appellants, unemployed California residents previously employed as farmworkers or in other low wage or minimum wage jobs, experienced significant delays in receiving benefits due them under the California unemployment compensation program (Unemp. Ins. Code, § 100 et seq.), suffering significant hardships as a result. In 2008, they sought a writ of mandate from the San Francisco Superior Court directing the Governor *238and other state officials1 to ensure in specified ways that appellants and others eligible for such benefits receive them within the time periods specified in…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Burford v. Sun Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Cohens v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Robles v. Employment Development DepartmentCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Rivera v. Kent, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- United Educators of San Francisco AFT/CFT v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.