Legal Opinion
Shoemaker v. Myers
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 28, 1992No. C000150PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PUGLIA, P. J.
This appeal is before us for the second time, this time on remand from the Supreme Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 29.4.) The matter originally came to us on appeal from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of demurrers to plaintiff’s complaint. In our first opinion (Shoemaker v. Myers (Cal.App.) (Shoemaker /)) we concluded all but one of plaintiff’s theories of recovery alleged in his complaint for wrongful termination as an investigator for the Department of Health Services (Department) were preempted by the exclusivity provisions of the workers’…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 1980
- Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Rojo v. KligerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Shoemaker v. MyersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1996
- Caldwell v. MontoyaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Stockett v. Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Nuveen Municipal High Income Opportunity Fund v. City of AlamedaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- B & E Convalescent Center v. State Compensation Insurance FundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.