Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Sacramento v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 26, 1980No. Civ. 19491Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CARR, J., Concurring and Dissenting

I concur with the majority that real party in interest petitioner below (hereafter Lambert) is not entitled, on the present record, to a free transcript of his administrative pension proceedings. I do not agree that one seeking review of administrative proceedings is never entitled to such transcript unless the costs of preparation are paid in advance of receipt of the transcript.

I also disagree that Lambert, as stated by the majority, “has been afforded the essentials of due process in regard to notice, opportunity to *721be heard, and a fair hearing.” These…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Allen v. Humboldt County Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Darley v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Civil Service Commission v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  5. Woodard v. Personnel Commission of the Compton Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API