Legal Opinion

McClung v. Employment Development Department

California Supreme Court

Decided November 4, 2004No. S121568PublishedCited by 111 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CHIN, J.

“It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, *470must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” (Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137, 177 [2 L.Ed. 60].)

This basic principle is at issue in this case. In Carrisales v. Department of Corrections (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1132 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 804, 988 P.2d 1083] (Carrisales), we interpreted Government Code section 12940 (hereafter section 12940), part of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Later, the Legislature amended that…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
  2. Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
  5. Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by111 opinions

  1. Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines PartnershipCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  2. California Redevelopment Ass'n v. MatosantosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  3. People v. GoldsmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Carter v. Dept. of Veterans AffairsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012

106 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API