Legal Opinion
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 10, 2008No. D050832PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BENKE, Acting P. J.
Section 19, article VI of the California Constitution requires that the Legislature “prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record.” The duty to prescribe judicial compensation is not delegable. Thus the practice of the County of Los Angeles (the county) of providing Los Angeles County superior court judges with employment benefits, in addition to the compensation prescribed by the Legislature, is not permissible. Accordingly, we must reverse an order granting summary judgment in favor of the county in an action brought by a taxpayer who challenged the…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- County of Alameda v. CarlesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Kahn v. East Side Union High School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- United States v. HatterSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Western Metal Supply Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Page v. Miracosta Community College DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Sturgeon v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- McGlynn v. State, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Sturgen v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Coblentz, Patch v. City & Co. of S.F.California Court of Appeal · 2015
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.