Legal Opinion

Bellus v. City of Eureka

California Supreme Court

Decided September 13, 1968No. S. F. 22236PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

Plaintiffs, members of the Police and Fire Departments of the City of Eureka suing on behalf of themselves individually and as representatives of the other mem*339bers of the two departments, sought a declaratory judgment that the pension payments directed to be made by Ordinance No. 2262, as amended, constitute a general obligation of the defendant, City of Eureka. The trial court found for plaintiffs. The City of Eureka appeals, contending that the pension payments are to be made solely from funds assigned to the retirement fund.

The complaint alleged “That an actual controversy has arisen…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Kern v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. In Re HubbardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Dryden v. Board of Pension CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  5. West Coast Advertising Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Bishop v. City of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Carman v. AlvordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Phillipson v. Board of Administration, Public Employees' Retirement SystemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Valdes v. CoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  5. Waite v. WaiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972

30 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