Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pressler v. Donald L. Bren Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1982No. L.A. 31553Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BROUSSARD, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in the result, but I cannot agree with the majority opinion’s holding that the time for filing a notice of appeal pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2 is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. I do not think that the Legislature intended to preclude a reviewing court from conducting a hearing de novo after an informal administrative wage claim proceeding merely because the appealing party failed to file a notice of appeal within 10 days. Instead, I believe that the time period, although mandatory, is not jurisdictional, and that the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hollister Convalescent Hospital, Inc. v. RicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Estate of Hanley v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Weitz v. YankoskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Pianka v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Lundy v. LakinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API