Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Gov Ordered to Halt Furlough Days With Backpay Plus Legal Interest

By FindLaw Staff on July 14, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Plus, Criminal, Administrative, Insurance, Property, and Tort Matters

Serv. Employees Int'l Union v. Schwarzenegger, A126525, concerned a union's action against Governor of California and the Director of the Department of Personnel Administration, challenging the mandatory imposition of furlough on State Fund employees for two days per month in accordance with the Governor's executive order.  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment issuing a writ of mandate and a permanent injunction halting the furlough days and ordering the Controller to pay all State Fund employees their full salaries through back pay with legal interest in accordance with the reasoning of the Division Three opinion authored by Justice Pollak, with minor editorial changes where defendants' claim that the award of back pay is defective procedurally, evidentially, and substantively is rejected.

People v. Wilson, F056965, concerned a challenge to a conviction of an inmate for making criminal threats against a correctional officer and other related crimes.  In affirming, the court held that the defendant's conviction for making criminal threats against correctional officer is supported by substantial evidence because the nature and circumstances of the threat showed that it was "so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat." Furthermore, defendant's conviction for violating section 76 is supported by substantial evidence as the officer is in the class of persons covered by that section.

People v. Mesa, D056280, concerned a challenge to a defendant's conviction and sentence for gang related assault with a firearm and other related offenses.  First, the court reversed in part in holding that a felon's continuous possession of a single firearm does not permit multiple punishments for violation of the statute that prohibits felons from possessing a firearm.  Next, the court affirmed in part the judgment of the trial court where, the criminal street gang statute punishes conduct and intentions that are separate from the conduct and intentions that give rise to culpability for assault with a firearm.  And lastly, the court held that where, as in this case, a felon has possession of both a firearm and ammunition that is not in the firearm, separate punishments may be imposed.

L.A. Checker Cab Coop., Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co., B213948, concerned a suit against an insurer for breach of contract, arising from an underlying lawsuit brought by a passenger against plaintiff.  In affirming the trial court's judgment for the insurer, the court held that the employer in this case is not covered for an assault and battery by its employee under the "bodily injury" provision of its commercial general liability policy regardless of whether the employee acted in unreasonable self-defense or the employer was negligent in training or supervising the employee.

Hines v. California Coastal Comm'n., A125254, concerned plaintiffs' petition for a writ of administrative mandate seeking to overturn the approval by the County Board of Supervisors (Board) of a coastal permit to construct a residence and a use permit allowing a reduction of the riparian corridor setback from 100 feet to 50 feet for the project.  In affirming the trial court's denial of the petition, the court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in approving permits for the project, allowing the development within the 100-foot buffer zone and maintaining a minimum 50-foot buffer.  The court also held that there is no significant question as to conformity with the local coastal program and, that there was no CEQA violation in approving the project.

Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc., B217782, concerned a personal injury lawsuit against a department store, for sustaining injuries when the store escalator the plaintiff was riding stopped abruptly due to a power outage that was apparently caused by a nearby traffic accident.  In affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the court held that the plaintiff did not show that there was a triable issue of fact that defendants breached any duty of care or that the escalator was defective.

Related Resources:


You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard