Legal Opinion
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 14, 2015No. G051016PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BEDSWORTH, Acting P. J.
I. INTRODUCTION
In 2008, plaintiff Harold P. Sturgeon successfully sued Los Angeles County, and the suit reverberated throughout the state. Sturgeon asserted that Los Angeles County’s practice of paying fringe or “supplemental” benefits to the county’s superior court judges contravened article VI, section 19, of the state Constitution, which provides the Legislature is to prescribe the compensation forjudges. (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 630 [84 Cal.Rptr.3d 242] (Sturgeon 1).) An appellate court agreed, holding the duty of prescribing…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- King v. BurwellSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- People v. GutierrezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- People v. HudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Kugler v. YocumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc. v. Cal. Dep't of Tax & Fee Admin., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- McGlynn v. State, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- City of Clearlake v. Highlands Mutual Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 2026
- Ferra v. Loews Hollywood HotelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019
- MCI Communications etc. v. Cal. Dept. of Tax and Fee Admin.California Court of Appeal · 2018
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.