Legal Opinion
County of Riverside v. Public Employment Relations Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 30, 2016No. D069065PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McConnell, p. j.—
INTRODUCTION
This case requires us to decide whether the provisions in the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Act) (Gov. Code, § 3500 et seq.) 1 for impasse resolution through advisory factfinding (factfinding provisions) violate article XI, section 11, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution by delegating a county’s or a city’s home rule powers to a private person or body. We conclude the factfinding provisions do not violate this section of the California Constitution because the provisions do not divest a county or a city of its final decisionmaking authority.
This case…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Oasis West Realty v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Martinez v. Metabolife International., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Loeffler v. Target CorporationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Contreras v. DowlingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- San Diego Housing Commission v. Public Employment Relations BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Contreras v. Dowling, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2016
- California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of San Mateo 9/10/2 Case Details Related Case: A159658California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Contreras v. DowlingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.