Ambrose v. Cranston
California Court of Appeal
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
- Benson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Sweesy v. Los Angeles County Peace Officers' Retirement BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Pickens v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Brailsford v. BlueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Barber v. Palo Verde Mutual Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sacramento Newspaper Guild, Local 92 v. Sacramento County Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980