Legal Opinion
Bernard v. City of Oakland
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 30, 2012No. A127853; No. A127844PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BANKE, J.
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs in these cases, retired firefighters or their surviving spouses, contend the City of Oakland and Union City were required to make additional payments toward their health care coverage on January 1, 2007, pursuant to an amendment to the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA; Gov. Code, § 22750 et seq.). The cities and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), which administers the PEMHCA, maintain they properly implemented the new formula as of January 1, 2007, resulting in increased payments being made in 2008.…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- In Re Tobacco II CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- People v. OverstreetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Marzec v. Public Employees' Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees' Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Bay Area Citizens v. Association of Bay Area GovernmentsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Vallejo Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Vallejo, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- City of El Centro v. LanierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.