Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Harris v. Civil Service Commission

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 5, 1998No. A078480Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

HAERLE, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur with majority in its holdings regarding counts II and III of appellant’s complaint on the ground it specifies, namely, that appellant sued the wrong party in these counts.

*1373I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s disposition of count I, the administrative mandamus count. In the first place, I believe the trial court made a fundamental error of law in the course of adjudicating count I. Second, I disagree with the majority’s dicta implying that administrative mandamus does not lie because the agency was exercising a “quasi-legislative”…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Washington v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & TrustSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. New York City Transit Authority v. BeazerSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

11 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