Legal Opinion
Sturgen v. County of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 28, 2010No. D056266PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BENKE, Acting P. J.
This is the second time this case has reached us on appeal. In our first opinion, Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 630 [84 Cal.Rptr.3d 242] (Sturgeon I), we reaffirmed the principle that judicial compensation is a state, not a county, responsibility. We found that by providing substantial employment benefits to its superior court judges, defendant County of Los Angeles (the county) violated article VI, section 19 of our Constitution, which requires that compensation for judges be prescribed by the Legislature. Thus we reversed an order…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Kugler v. YocumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Barner v. LeedsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- Community Redevelopment Agency v. AbramsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Sturgeon v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- McGlynn v. State, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Goble v. Fuller CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2013
- McGlynn v. State of Calif.California Court of Appeal · 2018
- Quinn v. U.S. Bank NACalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011