Legal Opinion
Reese v. Kizer
California Supreme Court
Decided September 22, 1988No. S002757PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BROUSSARD, J.
The issue presented is whether consistent with article III, section 3.5, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution the Legislature may direct an administrative agency, in effect, to implement a statute to the extent it does not conflict with federal law. We conclude that such directions are permissible and do not frustrate the purpose of the constitutional provision, which is to limit the power of administrative agencies to refuse to carry out legislative mandates.
This question, one of first impression, has profound implications for the state’s participation in a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State Board of Education v. LevitCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- People v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Unger v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- LSO, Ltd. v. StrohCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Lockyer v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Connerly v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- RCJ Medical Services, Inc. v. Bonta´California Court of Appeal · 2001
- S. Cal. Labor Mgmt. Operating Engr's Contract Compliance Comm. v. AubryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.