Legal Opinion
Almond v. County of Sacramento
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 4, 1969No. Civ. 12022PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
tion for mandate was sustained without leave to amend. Petitioners, who are 127 former classified employees of respondent County of Sacramento, appeal. This, therefore, is a “pleading case” except that there is, as a part of the record, a transcript of certain proceedings before the civil service commission of the county of which the trial court could have taken judicial notice and which we must consider. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (a); Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h); Agostini v. Strycula (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 804, 806 [42 Cal.Rptr. 314].)
After an examination of the petition and the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- In re BerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Brotherhood of Railroad TrainmenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Nutter v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- City and County of San Francisco v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- County Sanitation District No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees' Ass'n, Local 660California Supreme Court · 1985
- City of San Diego v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 127California Court of Appeal · 1970
- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1245 v. City of GridleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.