Pressler v. Donald L. Bren Co.
California Supreme Court
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
- Hollister Convalescent Hospital, Inc. v. RicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Estate of Hanley v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Weitz v. YankoskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- Pianka v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Lundy v. LakinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.