Legal Opinion
Tielsch v. City of Anaheim
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 28, 1984No. Civ. 34093PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSBY, J.
In the previous episode, we upheld the superior court’s denial of George P. Tielsch’s petition for extraordinary relief because it was premature and brought under the wrong code section. While that appeal was pending, Tielsch petitioned anew, this time pursuant to the proper statute— Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 et seq.; but now he has acted too late. Tielsch filed his petition 93 days after the city denied his retirement application, and Anaheim obtained summary judgment based on the 90-day limitation period of section 1094.6. Because he was notified of the city’s…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pesce v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Smith v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Foster v. Civil Service CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Shearer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Sinclair v. BakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Camper v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State MandatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Southwest Airlines v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Donnellan v. City of NovatoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.