salary claim (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

salary claim in California

8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2026 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Coan v. State of Californiagreen
cal · 1974 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1977–2014
2 sentences

2014For the most part, these cases concern disputes as to the proper construction of a statute or ordinance defining or giving rise to the exercise of official duty, and, although recognizing that the ultimate effect of a decision may be to adjudicate a money claim, they emphasize the necessity of official cooperation and the ministerial nature of the official acts involved. [Citations.]’ (Ibid.) See also Coan v. State of California (1974) 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ] in which the court stated: ‘Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus

2014For the most part, these cases concern disputes as to the proper construction of a statute or ordinance defining or giving rise to the exercise of official duty, and, although recognizing that the ultimate effect of a decision may be to adjudicate a money claim, they emphasize the necessity of official cooperation and the ministerial nature of the official acts involved. [Citations.]’ (Ibid.) See also Coan v. State of California (1974) 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ] in which the court stated: ‘Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus

44
Frost v. Trustees of California State University & Collegesgreen
calctapp · 1975 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
2 sentences

1977Dec. 711 ]; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488 ; Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ]; Robertson v. Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 , [ 69 Pac. 88 ].)” (See also Frost v. Trustees of Cal. State University and Colleges, 46 Cal.App.3d 225, 228-229 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 63 Cal.App. 141, 147 [ 218 P. 296 ].) Moreover, the court recently said in Coan v. State of California, 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ]: “Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the

1977Dec. 711 ]; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488 ; Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ]; Robertson v. Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 , [ 69 Pac. 88 ].)” (See also Frost v. Trustees of Cal. State University and Colleges, 46 Cal.App.3d 225, 228-229 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 63 Cal.App. 141, 147 [ 218 P. 296 ].) Moreover, the court recently said in Coan v. State of California, 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ]: “Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the

22
Goldsmith v. Board of Education of Sacramento City High School Districtgreen
calctapp · 1923 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
2 sentences

1977Dec. 711 ]; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488 ; Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ]; Robertson v. Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 , [ 69 Pac. 88 ].)” (See also Frost v. Trustees of Cal. State University and Colleges, 46 Cal.App.3d 225, 228-229 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 63 Cal.App. 141, 147 [ 218 P. 296 ].) Moreover, the court recently said in Coan v. State of California, 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ]: “Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the

1977Dec. 711 ]; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488 ; Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ]; Robertson v. Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 , [ 69 Pac. 88 ].)” (See also Frost v. Trustees of Cal. State University and Colleges, 46 Cal.App.3d 225, 228-229 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 63 Cal.App. 141, 147 [ 218 P. 296 ].) Moreover, the court recently said in Coan v. State of California, 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ]: “Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the

22
California School Employees Ass'n v. Torrance Unified School Districtgreen
calctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014For the most part, these cases concern disputes as to the proper construction of a statute or ordinance defining or giving rise to the exercise of official duty, and, although recognizing that the ultimate effect of a decision may be to adjudicate a money claim, they emphasize the necessity of official cooperation and the ministerial nature of the official acts involved. [Citations.]’ (Ibid.) See also Coan v. State of California (1974) 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [(Coan)] in which the court stated: ‘Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the

2014For the most part, these cases concern disputes as to the proper construction of a statute or ordinance defining or giving rise to the exercise of official duty, and, although recognizing that the ultimate effect of a decision may be to adjudicate a money claim, they emphasize the necessity of official cooperation and the ministerial nature of the official acts involved. [Citations.]’ (Ibid.) See also Coan v. State of California (1974) 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ] in which the court stated: ‘Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus

11
San Francisco Unified School District v. Johnsongreen
cal · 1971 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974
2 sentences

1974(San Francisco United School Dist. v. Johnson (1971) 3 Cal.3d 937, 944-945 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 309 , 479 P.2d 669 ]; County of Sacramento v. Hickman (1967) 66 Cal.2d 841, 845 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 428 P.2d 593 ].) Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the proper construction of a statute or ordinance giving rise to the official duty to pay the salary claim.

1974(San Francisco United School Dist. v. Johnson (1971) 3 Cal.3d 937, 944-945 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 309 , 479 P.2d 669 ]; County of Sacramento v. Hickman (1967) 66 Cal.2d 841, 845 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 428 P.2d 593 ].) Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the proper construction of a statute or ordinance giving rise to the official duty to pay the salary claim.

11
County of Sacramento v. Hickmangreen
cal · 1967 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974
2 sentences

1974(San Francisco United School Dist. v. Johnson (1971) 3 Cal.3d 937, 944-945 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 309 , 479 P.2d 669 ]; County of Sacramento v. Hickman (1967) 66 Cal.2d 841, 845 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 428 P.2d 593 ].) Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the proper construction of a statute or ordinance giving rise to the official duty to pay the salary claim.

1974(San Francisco United School Dist. v. Johnson (1971) 3 Cal.3d 937, 944-945 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 309 , 479 P.2d 669 ]; County of Sacramento v. Hickman (1967) 66 Cal.2d 841, 845 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 609 , 428 P.2d 593 ].) Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the proper construction of a statute or ordinance giving rise to the official duty to pay the salary claim.

11
Tevis v. City & County of San Franciscogreen
· 1954 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974
2 sentences

1974(Tevis v. City & County of San Francisco (1954) 43 Cal.2d 190, 198 [ 272 P.2d 757 ].) No reason appears to distinguish cases where, as here, the dispute concerns validity of the statute providing for the salary.

1974(Tevis v. City & County of San Francisco (1954) 43 Cal.2d 190, 198 [ 272 P.2d 757 ].) No reason appears to distinguish cases where, as here, the dispute concerns validity of the statute providing for the salary.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
Robertson v. Board of Library Trustees green
cal · 1902
2 sentences

1977Dec. 711 ]; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488 ; Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ]; Robertson v. Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 , [ 69 Pac. 88 ].)” (See also Frost v. Trustees of Cal. State University and Colleges, 46 Cal.App.3d 225, 228-229 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 63 Cal.App. 141, 147 [ 218 P. 296 ].) Moreover, the court recently said in Coan v. State of California, 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ]: “Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the

1977Dec. 711 ]; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488 ; Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ]; Robertson v. Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 , [ 69 Pac. 88 ].)” (See also Frost v. Trustees of Cal. State University and Colleges, 46 Cal.App.3d 225, 228-229 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 63 Cal.App. 141, 147 [ 218 P. 296 ].) Moreover, the court recently said in Coan v. State of California, 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ]: “Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the

21977–1977
Raisch v. Board of Education green
cal · 1889
2 sentences

1977Dec. 711 ]; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488 ; Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ]; Robertson v. Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 , [ 69 Pac. 88 ].)” (See also Frost v. Trustees of Cal. State University and Colleges, 46 Cal.App.3d 225, 228-229 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 63 Cal.App. 141, 147 [ 218 P. 296 ].) Moreover, the court recently said in Coan v. State of California, 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ]: “Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the

1977Dec. 711 ]; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488 ; Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ]; Robertson v. Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 , [ 69 Pac. 88 ].)” (See also Frost v. Trustees of Cal. State University and Colleges, 46 Cal.App.3d 225, 228-229 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 63 Cal.App. 141, 147 [ 218 P. 296 ].) Moreover, the court recently said in Coan v. State of California, 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ]: “Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the

21977–1977
Babcock v. Goodrich green
· 1874
2 sentences

1977Dec. 711 ]; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488 ; Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ]; Robertson v. Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 , [ 69 Pac. 88 ].)" (See also Frost v. Trustees of Cal. State University and Colleges, 46 Cal. App.3d 225, 228-229 [ 120 Cal. Rptr. 1 ]; Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 63 Cal. App. 141, 147 [ 218 P. 296 ].) Moreover, the court recently said in Coan v. State of California, 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal. Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ]: "Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns

1977Dec. 711 ]; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488 ; Raisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542 , [ 22 Pac. 890 ]; Robertson v. Trustees, 136 Cal. 403 , [ 69 Pac. 88 ].)” (See also Frost v. Trustees of Cal. State University and Colleges, 46 Cal.App.3d 225, 228-229 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]; Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 63 Cal.App. 141, 147 [ 218 P. 296 ].) Moreover, the court recently said in Coan v. State of California, 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 187 , 520 P.2d 1003 ]: “Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the dispute concerns the

21977–1977
Archuleta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green
ca10 · 2008
1 sentence

2026(See, e.g., Archuleta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (10th Cir. 2008) 543 F.3d 1226 , 1233–1234 [evidence held sufficient to meet salary basis test included employer’s “compensation policy for full-time pharmacists, as well as the compensation policy statements that each of its pharmacists signed”].) In summary, neither the theoretical possibility of improper pay docking nor Laurel Johnstone’s six unpaid absences justified the wholesale rejection of NATC’s exemption defenses as to all class members throughout the entire class period.

12026–2026
California Teachers' Ass'n v. Governing Board green
calctapp · 1983
1 sentence

2014For the most part, these cases concern disputes as to the proper construction of a statute or ordinance defining or giving rise to the exercise of official duty, and, although recognizing that the ultimate effect of a decision may be to adjudicate a money claim, they emphasize the necessity of official cooperation and the ministerial nature of the official acts involved. [Citations.]’ (Ibid.) See also Coan v. State of California (1974) 11 Cal.3d 286, 291 [(Coan)] in which the court stated: ‘Although a claim for payment of salary is in effect a money claim, mandamus is a proper remedy where the

12014–2014
Skyline Homes, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations green
calctapp · 1985
1 sentence

2003(Id. at p. 247.) Under the fluctuating workweek method, “the employee’s ‘regular rate’ of pay is determined by dividing the number of hours actually worked in the particular workweek into the amount of the fixed weekly salary (rather than dividing the salary by the standard non-overtime workweek of 40 hours) for overtime compensation. [Citation.]” (Skyline, supra, 165 Cal.App.3d at p. 247 .) The Skyline court reasoned that, because the workweek is the unit of time used under the federal statute, the total number of hours worked during that workweek is used as the divisor but that, because the

12003–2003
Fraser v. United States green
scotus · 1991
1 sentence

1991(Abshire v. County of Kern (9th Cir. 1990) 908 F.2d 483, 486 , cert. den. _ U.S. _[ 112 L.Ed.2d 848 , 111 S.Ct. 785 ].) 18 The rates for battalion chiefs ranges from $16 to $27 per hour.

11991–1991
Dan Abshire v. County Of Kern green
ca9 · 1990
1 sentence

1991(Abshire v. County of Kern (9th Cir. 1990) 908 F.2d 483, 486 , cert. den. _ U.S. _[ 112 L.Ed.2d 848 , 111 S.Ct. 785 ].) 18 The rates for battalion chiefs ranges from $16 to $27 per hour.

11991–1991
Uberoi v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado green
scotus · 1991
1 sentence

1991(Abshire v. County of Kern (9th Cir. 1990) 908 F.2d 483, 486 , cert. den. _ U.S. _[ 112 L.Ed.2d 848 , 111 S.Ct. 785 ].) 18 The rates for battalion chiefs ranges from $16 to $27 per hour.

11991–1991

Where else courts name it

CA 8 (1974–2026) NY 6 (1896–2008) OH 3 (2002–2016) NE 2 (1903–2023) WI 2 (1977–1990) IL 2 (1914–2009) TX 2 (1920–1951)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check