Service Employees International Union, Local 99 v. Options—A Child Care & Human Services Agency
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSKEY, J.
A government contractor agreed under the terms of its contracts to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.) in meetings of its board of directors to the extent that the *873meetings involved publicly funded programs. We hold that members of the public are the intended' beneficiaries of such a contractual provision and can enforce the provision as third party beneficiaries of the contract. The government contractor cannot be sued directly under the Brown Act, however, because it is not a “legislative body” as defined in the act.
FACTUAL AND…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Miller v. Department of CorrectionsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Hess v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 2002
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Dowling v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Marshall Block v. Ebay, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Colaco v. Cavotec SA, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Chartis Specialty Insurance v. Tesoro Corp.District Court, W.D. Texas · 2015
- In Re Grievance of Michael Miller (State of Vermont, Appellant)Supreme Court of Vermont · 2024
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.