1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.4th
  4. 52 Cal.4th
  5. 52 Cal.4th 1171 (2011)
 

RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSN. OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC. v. COUNTY OF ORANGE

No. S184059.

52 Cal.4th 1171 (2011)

RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, Defendant and Respondent.

Supreme Court of California.

November 21, 2011.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Rosen Bien & Galvan, Ernest Galvan ; Moscone, Emblidge & Sater, G. Scott Emblidge , Rachel J. Sater ; Law Office of Michael P. Brown and Michael P. Brown for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Peter H. Mixon , Gina M. Ratto , Patricia K. McBeath , Howard L. Schwartz and Jennifer G. Krengel for California Public Employees' Retirement System as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek, Robert J. Bezemek and Patricia Lim for The California Federation of Teachers, The California Community College Independents Organization and The Fresno Unified Retirees Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, Jeffrey Lewis , Bill Lann Lee , Andrew Lah and Sacha Crittenden Steinberger for California Retired County Employees Association, Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees and Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Nicholas S. Chrisos , County Counsel, Teri L. Maksoudian , Deputy County Counsel; Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, Arthur A. Hartinger , Jennifer L. Nock and J. Scott Smith for Defendant and Respondent.

Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai , Jonathan V. Holtzman , K. Scott Dickey and Steve Cikes for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Hanson Bridgett , Raymond F. Lynch , Sarah D. Mott and Caroline B. Burnett for the County of Sonoma and the County of Contra Costa as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

BAXTER, J.—

At the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,1 we address the following abstract question: "Whether, as a matter of California law, a California county and its employees can form an implied contract that confers vested rights to health benefits on retired county employees." For the reasons that follow, we conclude that a county may be bound by an implied contract...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases