Harris v. Civil Service Commission
California Court of Appeal
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
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Washington v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & TrustSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- New York City Transit Authority v. BeazerSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.