Legal Opinion
Thorning v. Hollister School District
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 30, 1992No. H009727PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PREMO, J.
Plaintiffs Zeph Thorning and Robbie Crump, retired board members of defendant Hollister School District (hereafter, District), sought a writ of mandate directing District to pay for postretirement continuation of health benefits after District reversed an earlier authorization and suspended payment. The trial court sustained a demurrer to their second amended petition, and dismissed the action. Thorning and Crump appeal, contending that they had a vested right to the benefits, and that that right was secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. We agree and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Wildlife Alive v. ChickeringCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Betts v. Board of AdministrationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Olson v. CoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Garcia v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Bullock v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Nano Maldonado v. Tony Harris, in His Capacity as Acting Director of the California Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- San Diego Police Officers' Ass'n v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement SystemCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Retired Employees Ass'n of Orange County, Inc. v. County of OrangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Navlet v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 2008
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.