Legal Opinion

Ambrose v. Cranston

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 15, 1968No. Civ. 31141PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFleming, J.

Appellants, who are retired judges and widows of retired judges of the Court of Appeal, superior court, and municipal court, sought a declaration they were entitled to increased retirement benefits under the Judges’ Retirement Law (Gov. Code. §§ 75000-75109) by virtue of a 1959 amendment (Stats. 1959, ch. 1363, §1, pp. 3634-3635) which added Article 3.6 (codified as Gov. Code, §§75075-75079) to chapter 11 of title 8 of the Government Code. The trial court declared that appellants were not entitled to the increased benefits sought.

- Prior to 18 September 1959 (the effective date of Article…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Benson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Sweesy v. Los Angeles County Peace Officers' Retirement BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Pickens v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Brailsford v. BlueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Barber v. Palo Verde Mutual Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sacramento Newspaper Guild, Local 92 v. Sacramento County Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  3. Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API