constitutional merit principle (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

constitutional merit principle in California

5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2020 0 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 (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Lund v. California State Employees Assn.green
calctapp · 1990 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2003
2 sentences

2003(Nov. 6, 1934), argument in favor of Prop. 7, p. 12; Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 182-183 .) “ ‘[T]he cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle is [the] competitive examination process that determines merit, effectiveness and fitness for appointment and promotion. [Citations.]’ ” (Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 542 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ], quoting Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; Professional Engineers in Cal. Government v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 678, 690 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 375

2003(Nov. 6, 1934), argument in favor of Prop. 7, p. 12; Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 182-183 .) “ ‘[T]he cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle is [the] competitive examination process that determines merit, effectiveness and fitness for appointment and promotion. [Citations.]’ ” (Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 542 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ], quoting Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; Professional Engineers in Cal. Government v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 678, 690 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 375

33
California State Personnel Board v. California State Employees Ass'n, Local 1000green
cal · 2005 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2020
2 sentences

2007(See California State Personnel Bd. v. California State Employees Assn., Local 1000, SEIU, AFL-CIO (2005) 36 Cal.4th 758, 774 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 201 , 115 P.3d 506 ] [“In adopting the constitutional merit principle, California voters made clear their intent that permanent civil service appointments and promotions be made solely on the basis of merit.

2007(See California State Personnel Bd. v. California State Employees Assn., Local 1000, SEIU, AFL-CIO (2005) 36 Cal.4th 758, 774 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 201 , 115 P.3d 506 ] [“In adopting the constitutional merit principle, California voters made clear their intent that permanent civil service appointments and promotions be made solely on the basis of merit.

22
County of Fresno v. State of Californiagreen
cal · 1991 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007No matter what discretion the Legislature has purported to give or withdraw from appointing powers, it does not have a free hand to approve MOU’s or enact statutes that flout this mandate”]; County of Fresno v. State of California (1991) 53 Cal.3d 482,493 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 92 , 808 P.2d 235 ] [“ ‘ “ ‘legislation must be subordinate to the constitutional provision, and in furtherance of its purpose, and must not in any particular attempt to narrow or embarrass it’ ” ’ ”].) Article 24 revives some of the restrictions on the ability of state agencies to enter into private contracts for architectura

2007No matter what discretion the Legislature has purported to give or withdraw from appointing powers, it does not have a free hand to approve MOU’s or enact statutes that flout this mandate”]; County of Fresno v. State of California (1991) 53 Cal.3d 482,493 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 92 , 808 P.2d 235 ] [“ ‘ “ ‘legislation must be subordinate to the constitutional provision, and in furtherance of its purpose, and must not in any particular attempt to narrow or embarrass it’ ” ’ ”].) Article 24 revives some of the restrictions on the ability of state agencies to enter into private contracts for architectura

11
Alexander v. State Personnel Boardgreen
calctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003(Nov. 6, 1934), argument in favor of Prop. 7, p. 12; Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 182-183 .) “ ‘[T]he cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle is [the] competitive examination process that determines merit, effectiveness and fitness for appointment and promotion. [Citations.]’ ” (Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 542 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ], quoting Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; Professional Engineers in Cal. Government v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 678, 690 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 375

2003(Nov. 6, 1934), argument in favor of Prop. 7, p. 12; Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 182-183 .) “ ‘[T]he cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle is [the] competitive examination process that determines merit, effectiveness and fitness for appointment and promotion. [Citations.]’ ” (Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 542 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ], quoting Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; Professional Engineers in Cal. Government v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 678, 690 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 375

11
Professional Engineers in California Government v. State Personnel Boardgreen
calctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003(Nov. 6, 1934), argument in favor of Prop. 7, p. 12; Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 182-183 .) “ ‘[T]he cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle is [the] competitive examination process that determines merit, effectiveness and fitness for appointment and promotion. [Citations.]’ ” (Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 542 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ], quoting Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; Professional Engineers in Cal. Government v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 678, 690 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 375

2003(Nov. 6, 1934), argument in favor of Prop. 7, p. 12; Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 182-183 .) “ ‘[T]he cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle is [the] competitive examination process that determines merit, effectiveness and fitness for appointment and promotion. [Citations.]’ ” (Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 542 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ], quoting Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; Professional Engineers in Cal. Government v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 678, 690 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 375

11
Almassy v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commissiongreen
cal · 1949 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000A. County Civil Service Com. (1949) 34 Cal.2d 387, 398 [ 210 P.2d 503 ].) In Almassy , the oral interview was found to be a competitive examination. “[T]he candidates for the positions here in question were all tested by oral interviews for the same personality factors—each candidate was pitting his personality traits against those of every other candidate incident to the examiner’s process of making comparative evaluations—so that the ratings in consequence of such ‘open’ contest may properly be said to rest on a competitive basis.” ( 34 Cal.2d at p. 398 .) We reject the Board’s contention th

2000A. County Civil Service Com. (1949) 34 Cal.2d 387, 398 [ 210 P.2d 503 ].) In Almassy , the oral interview was found to be a competitive examination. “[T]he candidates for the positions here in question were all tested by oral interviews for the same personality factors—each candidate was pitting his personality traits against those of every other candidate incident to the examiner’s process of making comparative evaluations—so that the ratings in consequence of such ‘open’ contest may properly be said to rest on a competitive basis.” ( 34 Cal.2d at p. 398 .) We reject the Board’s contention th

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
State Personnel Board v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission green
cal · 1985
1 sentence

2003(Nov. 6, 1934), argument in favor of Prop. 7, p. 12; Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 182-183 .) “ ‘[T]he cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle is [the] competitive examination process that determines merit, effectiveness and fitness for appointment and promotion. [Citations.]’ ” (Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 542 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ], quoting Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; Professional Engineers in Cal. Government v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 678, 690 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 375

12003–2003
Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown green
cal · 1981
2 sentences

2003(Nov. 6, 1934), argument in favor of Prop. 7, p. 12; Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 182-183 .) “ ‘[T]he cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle is [the] competitive examination process that determines merit, effectiveness and fitness for appointment and promotion. [Citations.]’ ” (Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 542 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ], quoting Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; Professional Engineers in Cal. Government v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 678, 690 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 375

2003(Nov. 6, 1934), argument in favor of Prop. 7, p. 12; Brown, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 182-183 .) “ ‘[T]he cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle is [the] competitive examination process that determines merit, effectiveness and fitness for appointment and promotion. [Citations.]’ ” (Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 542 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ], quoting Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 425 ]; Professional Engineers in Cal. Government v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 678, 690 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 375

12003–2003
Kidd v. State of California green
calctapp · 1998
2 sentences

2001VII, § 1, subd. (b).) Indeed, we previously referred to the competitive examination as “the cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle.” (Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 425 ].) In Kidd v. State of California (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 386 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 758 ] (Kidd), we invalidated a “supplemental certification” program which undermined competitive examinations by devaluing candidates with higher scores because of their ethnicity and gender.

2001VII, § 1, subd. (b).) Indeed, we previously referred to the competitive examination as “the cornerstone of the constitutional merit principle.” (Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 425 ].) In Kidd v. State of California (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 386 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 758 ] (Kidd), we invalidated a “supplemental certification” program which undermined competitive examinations by devaluing candidates with higher scores because of their ethnicity and gender.

12001–2001

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check