# Morcos v. Board of Retirement

> California Supreme Court · November 26, 1990 · 51 Cal. 3d 924

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9792519

## Case

- **Full name:** SAAD MORCOS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 26, 1990
- **Citations:** 51 Cal. 3d 924; 275 Cal. Rptr. 187; 800 P.2d 543; 90 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8543; 1990 Cal. LEXIS 5226
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Broussard, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 69 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9792519

## Opinion text

MOSK, J.
I concur.
However, I cannot join in the implied criticism of Holtz v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 648 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 646 , 552 P.2d 430 ]. Holtz was a unanimous opinion of this court, rendered in an inverse condemnation matter. The court interpreted the provisions of what is now Code of Civil Procedure section 1036 (hereafter section 1036) and found them to be unambiguous on the subject of attorney fees to the prevailing party.
Whether section 1036 is wise may well be debatable, but the debate must be conducted in legislative halls and not in a judicial opinion. Since section 1036 applies only to inverse condemnation proceedings, and the instant case does not involve inverse condemnation, any discussion of the code section is misplaced. The doctrine of stare decisis applies and requires us to adhere to the rule of Holtz in an appropriate case. As the majority indicate, this is not such a case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9792519. Public record. Not legal advice.