Legal Opinion
McIntosh v. Aubry
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 16, 1993No. A057602PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SMITH, J.
Class action plaintiffs engaged in the construction of a residential care facility (the Helicon Project) in Riverside County (the County) petitioned the superior court for writ of mandate against a decision by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (the Director) that the project was not a “public works” project under Labor Code section 1720 or 1720.2 of the prevailing wage law. "Hie court denied relief, finding no abuse of discretion and giving judgment for the Director, his agency (the DIR) and real parties in interest, the latter being the County and various…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Rojo v. KligerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1992
- No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- County of Alameda v. CarlesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Bureerong v. UvawasDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1996
- County of San Diego v. StateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Kotterman v. KillianArizona Supreme Court · 1999
- Bunnett v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Shamsian v. Department of ConservationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.