Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 California opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonomagreen2 sentences2021(Id. at p. 789.) The court explained Education Code section 92611 could not be “construed as a general regulation pursuant to the police power applicable to private individuals and corporations,” and “a prevailing wage requirement is not a matter of statewide concern.” (Labor Council, at p. 790.) In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma (1979) 23 Cal.3d 296 (Sonoma County), in which it held “ ‘the determination of wages paid to employees of charter cities as well as charter counties is a matter of local rather than state 2012Labor Council, at p. 789, italics added.) Relying on Sonoma County, supra, 23 Cal.3d 296 , we concluded that the state’s prevailing wage requirement was “not a matter of statewide concern.” (S.F. | 1 | 7 |
San Francisco Labor Council v. Regents of University of Californiagreen2 sentences1996Thus, we follow the holding of Labor Council v. UC, supra, 26 Cal.3d 785 , and hold that these projects can proceed without a prevailing wage requirement because they do not involve matters of statewide concern and involve internal UC affairs vital to its core educational function. 1996Thus, we follow the holding of Labor Council v. UC, supra, 26 Cal.3d 785 , and hold that these projects can proceed without a prevailing wage requirement because they do not involve matters of statewide concern and involve internal UC affairs vital to its core educational function. | 1 | 3 |
Vasquez v. Californiagreen1 sentence2015(Monterey/Santa Cruz County etc, v. Cypress Marina Heights LP (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1521 [“Local and union contractors had a beneficial interest in the enforcement of the prevailing wage requirement because it was intended to benefit them.”]; see also Vasquez v. State of California (2008) 45 Cal.4th 243, 248-249, 260 [court awarded private attorney general fees to union official pursuing taxpayer action against the state arising from stipulated injunction to ensure payment of prevailing wage to state prisoners].) American demurred on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to allege, and can | 1 | 1 |
Monterey/Santa Cruz County Building & Construction Trades Council v. Cypress Marina Heights LPgreen1 sentence2015(Monterey/Santa Cruz County etc, v. Cypress Marina Heights LP (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1521 [“Local and union contractors had a beneficial interest in the enforcement of the prevailing wage requirement because it was intended to benefit them.”]; see also Vasquez v. State of California (2008) 45 Cal.4th 243, 248-249, 260 [court awarded private attorney general fees to union official pursuing taxpayer action against the state arising from stipulated injunction to ensure payment of prevailing wage to state prisoners].) American demurred on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to allege, and can | 1 | 1 |
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences2011Appeals Bd. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1515, 1522 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 78 ].) “Any person interested under a written instrument . . . who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another . . . may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract. . . . 2011Appeals Bd. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1515, 1522 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 78 ].) “Any person interested under a written instrument . . . who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another . . . may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract. . . . | 1 | 1 |
AIU Insurance v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 821-822 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 820 , 799 P.2d 1253 ].) CMH contends that there are disputed factual issues about whether the deed covenants required by the Implementation Agreement were intended to make the Master Resolution’s prevailing wage requirement a covenant running with the land. 2011Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 821-822 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 820 , 799 P.2d 1253 ].) CMH contends that there are disputed factual issues about whether the deed covenants required by the Implementation Agreement were intended to make the Master Resolution’s prevailing wage requirement a covenant running with the land. | 1 | 1 |
Vial v. City of San Diegogreen2 sentences2009In Vial v. City of San Diego (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 346, 348 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 647 ] ( Vial ), we held that, as a charter city, the City of San Diego was not subject to the PWL. 2009In Vial v. City of San Diego (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 346, 348 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 647 ] ( Vial ), we held that, as a charter city, the City of San Diego was not subject to the PWL. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hwanggreen2 sentences2006(Cf. People v. Hwang (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1181-1182 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 ] [held that the public works prevailing wage law of Lab. 2006(Cf. People v. Hwang (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1181-1182 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 ] [held that the public works prevailing wage law of Lab. | 1 | 1 |
Grier v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Districtgreen2 sentences2005(Id. at p. 167.) Plaintiffs argue that Grier v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 325, 334 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 525 ] (Grier), concerning section 2928, is an example of the application of a Labor Code provision to a local public agency. 2005(Id. at p. 167.) Plaintiffs argue that Grier v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 325, 334 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 525 ] (Grier), concerning section 2928, is an example of the application of a Labor Code provision to a local public agency. | 1 | 1 |
Eddy v. Sharpgreen2 sentences1997(Gagne v. Bertran, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 488 ; Eddy v. Sharp (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 858, 864 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 211 ].) Here, the complaint alleges that B.L.M. proposed to the city to build the project; that B.L.M. and the other parties determined that the need to pay prevailing wages would render the project economically unfeasible; that Sabo & Deitsch was involved in those discussions; that as a result of those financial concerns the project was restructured; that Sabo & Deitsch told B.L.M. on July 2, 1987, that the revised project would not be subject to the prevailing-wage requirement; that t 1997(Gagne v. Bertran, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 488 ; Eddy v. Sharp (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 858, 864 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 211 ].) Here, the complaint alleges that B.L.M. proposed to the city to build the project; that B.L.M. and the other parties determined that the need to pay prevailing wages would render the project economically unfeasible; that Sabo & Deitsch was involved in those discussions; that as a result of those financial concerns the project was restructured; that Sabo & Deitsch told B.L.M. on July 2, 1987, that the revised project would not be subject to the prevailing-wage requirement; that t | 1 | 1 |
Ector v. City of Torrancegreen2 sentences1982Review of the act's provisions (see ante, at p. 135) demonstrates that the act does not interfere with the setting of peace officers' compensation. [12] (Compare Sonoma County, supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 316-318 [invalidating legislative attempt to impose a pay freeze on municipal employees]; see also San Francisco Labor Council v. Regents of University of California (1980) 26 Cal.3d 785, 790-791 [ 163 Cal. Rptr. 460 , 608 P.2d 277 ] [invalidating legislative attempt to impose *138 a prevailing wage requirement].) Nor does the act purport to regulate their qualifications for employment (compare E 1982Review of the act's provisions (see ante, at p. 135) demonstrates that the act does not interfere with the setting of peace officers' compensation. [12] (Compare Sonoma County, supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 316-318 [invalidating legislative attempt to impose a pay freeze on municipal employees]; see also San Francisco Labor Council v. Regents of University of California (1980) 26 Cal.3d 785, 790-791 [ 163 Cal. Rptr. 460 , 608 P.2d 277 ] [invalidating legislative attempt to impose *138 a prevailing wage requirement].) Nor does the act purport to regulate their qualifications for employment (compare E | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Regents of the University of California v. Aubry
green
2 sentences2021Public agencies’ use of taxpayers’ funds to pay in excess of a prevailing wage is unwarranted. . . .” (Ibid.) The court rejected the argument Sonoma County was inapplicable to the Regents, explaining “[s]alary determination is as important to the autonomy of the university as it is to the independence of chartered cities and counties.” (Labor Council, at p. 791.) 7 Education Code section 92611 provides: “The minimum and maximum salary limits for laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed on an hourly or per diem basis need not be uniform throughout the state, but the [R]egents shall ascertain, 2011Public agencies’ use of taxpayers’ funds to pay in excess of a prevailing wage is unwarranted. . . .” (Ibid.) The court rejected the argument Sonoma was inapplicable to the Regents, explaining “[s]alary determination is as important to the autonomy of the university as it is to the independence of chartered cities and counties.” (San Francisco Labor Council, at p. 791.) In Aubry, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th 579, 587-588 , the court, citing language from San Francisco Labor Council , held the Regents were not required to pay private contractors the prevailing wage under section 1770 et seq., which ap | 3 | 2000–2021 |
Kim v. Regents of University of California
green
2 sentences2011Public agencies’ use of taxpayers’ funds to pay in excess of a prevailing wage is unwarranted. . . .” (Ibid.) The court rejected the argument Sonoma was inapplicable to the Regents, explaining “[s]alary determination is as important to the autonomy of the university as it is to the independence of chartered cities and counties.” (San Francisco Labor Council, at p. 791.) In Aubry, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th 579, 587-588 , the court, citing language from San Francisco Labor Council , held the Regents were not required to pay private contractors the prevailing wage under section 1770 et seq., which ap 2005While the University and Regents are intended to operate as independently of the state as possible, there are three areas in which they are subject to legislative regulation: appropriations regarding salaries; general police power regulations; and regulations governing matters of statewide concern not involving internal university affairs.” (Kim, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 166 .) In *344 discussing the Regents’ exemption from paying prevailing wages, the court in Kim noted that a prevailing wage requirement is a local, rather than a statewide concern. | 2 | 2005–2011 |
Daniels v. Williams
green
1 sentence2016To hold that injury caused by such conduct is a deprivation within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment would trivialize the centuries-old principle of due process of law." (Daniels v. Williams, supra, at pp. 331-332 .) The court in Mobley v. Los Angeles Unified School District took a somewhat more practical and less historical approach in rejecting a claim that individual employees of the Commissioner could be held liable under section 1983 because they erroneously initiated a prevailing wage claim against a contractor based on their view of what the contractor should have been paying his | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009The trial court ultimately sustained demurrers to the complaint on various grounds, including that the petition for relief in mandate to compel a hearing before the DLSE was barred by the statute of limitations. ( Mobley, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1224-1231.) After an exhaustive analysis of the constitutionality of California’s prevailing wage statutes and regulations affecting public works as considered and upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (2001) 532 U.S. 189 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 391 , 121 S.Ct. 1446 ], the Court of Appeal in Mobley concluded that 2009The trial court ultimately sustained demurrers to the complaint on various grounds, including that the petition for relief in mandate to compel a hearing before the DLSE was barred by the statute of limitations. ( Mobley, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1224-1231.) After an exhaustive analysis of the constitutionality of California’s prevailing wage statutes and regulations affecting public works as considered and upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (2001) 532 U.S. 189 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 391 , 121 S.Ct. 1446 ], the Court of Appeal in Mobley concluded that | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Chamber of Commerce v. Bragdon
green
1 sentence2006Edison relies heavily on Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Bragdon (9th Cir. 1995) 64 F.3d 497 (Bragdon), in which the Ninth Circuit held that a prevailing wage requirement was preempted under the Machinists doctrine. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne
green
1 sentence2006In our view, the rule that we believe flows from Metropolitan Life, supra, 471 U.S. 724 and Fort Halifax, supra, 482 U.S. 1 does not turn on the characterization of a regulation as a “minimum labor standard” as opposed to some other type of regulation of a substantive term of employment. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence2006In our view, the rule that we believe flows from Metropolitan Life, supra, 471 U.S. 724 and Fort Halifax, supra, 482 U.S. 1 does not turn on the characterization of a regulation as a “minimum labor standard” as opposed to some other type of regulation of a substantive term of employment. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Gagne v. Bertran
green
1 sentence1997(Gagne v. Bertran, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 488 ; Eddy v. Sharp (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 858, 864 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 211 ].) Here, the complaint alleges that B.L.M. proposed to the city to build the project; that B.L.M. and the other parties determined that the need to pay prevailing wages would render the project economically unfeasible; that Sabo & Deitsch was involved in those discussions; that as a result of those financial concerns the project was restructured; that Sabo & Deitsch told B.L.M. on July 2, 1987, that the revised project would not be subject to the prevailing-wage requirement; that t | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Associated Builders & Contractors, Golden Gate Chapter Inc. v. Baca
green
1 sentence1994The district court went far beyond the Bechtel case, which it was attempting to follow, and concluded that the prevailing wage standard was not a “minimum” standard and therefore impermissibly interfered with the collective bargaining process. ( 769 F.Supp. at p. 1545 .) The court also found that the localities’ uneven application of their resolutions and ordinance allowed preferential treatment of particular employers, at the government’s discretion, and regulated an *1182 area already governed by collective bargaining. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bishop v. City of San Jose
green
2 sentences1980In that case we held “the determination of wages paid to employees of charter cities as well as charter counties is a matter of local rather than statewide concern.” Sonoma invalidated statutory provisions cutting off state appropriations to cities and counties giving wage raises to employees. ( 23 Cal.3d at p. 317 .) We pointed out that the fact the Legislature had declared the matter to be one of statewide concern is not controlling. ( 23 Cal.3d at p. 316 ; Bishop v. City of San Jose, supra, 1 Cal.3d 56, 63 .) Even before the 1970 constitutional amendment giving charter cities “plenary” auth 1980In that case we held “the determination of wages paid to employees of charter cities as well as charter counties is a matter of local rather than statewide concern.” Sonoma invalidated statutory provisions cutting off state appropriations to cities and counties giving wage raises to employees. ( 23 Cal.3d at p. 317 .) We pointed out that the fact the Legislature had declared the matter to be one of statewide concern is not controlling. ( 23 Cal.3d at p. 316 ; Bishop v. City of San Jose, supra, 1 Cal.3d 56, 63 .) Even before the 1970 constitutional amendment giving charter cities “plenary” auth | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.