Case law

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Sep 16, 1992

Brown Act. ANALYSIS The Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. … (Hutnick v.

Opinion No. (2006)

California Attorney General Reports · May 25, 2006

Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902 , 908 [same]; Bollinger v. … (See Moreno v. City of King (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th at 17 , 26-27 ; Lucas v. Board of Trustees (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 988 , 992 .)

Opinion No. (1998)

California Attorney General Reports · Apr 27, 1998

In County of Madera v. … (See Hartzell v. Connell (1984) 35 Cal.3d 899 , 905 , 911 ; California Assn. For Safety Education v. Brown (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1264 , 1276-1280 .)

Opinion No. (2001)

California Attorney General Reports · Jan 24, 2001

II , §§ 8-9; Rossi v. Brown (1995) 9 Cal.4th 688 , 695-696 ; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 255 , 256 (1990).) … City of Manhattan Beach (1976) 18 Cal.3d 22 , 25 ; Kugler v. Yocum, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 374), which the electorate may set through an initiative measure (Rossi v. Brown, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 696-697; Spencer v.

Opinion No. (2005)

California Attorney General Reports · Oct 20, 2005

(See Stigall v. City of Taft, supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 569-571; City Council v. McKinley (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 204 , 212-213 ; People v. Sobel (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 1046 , 1052 ; Millbrae Assn. for Residential Survival v. … Brown Act and the records disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act (§ 33614.5), it has not made their contracts subject to the strictures of Government Code section 1090 .

Opinion No. (1997)

California Attorney General Reports · Apr 24, 1997

We are to interpret statutes so as to effectuate the intent of the Legislature. ( Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co . (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711 , 724 .) … (b); Laupheimer v. State of California (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 440 , 463 ; City of Poway v.

Opinion No. (1997)

California Attorney General Reports · Sep 29, 1997

We are to interpret statutes so as to effectuate the intent of the Legislature. ( Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co . (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711 , 724 .) … Moreover, in O'Brien v.

Opinion No. (2007)

California Attorney General Reports · Feb 8, 2007

BROWN JR. Attorney General GREGORY L. … Chapman v. Rapsey (1940) 16 Cal.2d 636 , 642 ; People ex rel. Deputy Sheriffs' Assn. v. County of Santa Clara (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1481 ; 81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 344 , 345 (1998).)

Opinion No. (2004)

California Attorney General Reports · Apr 28, 2004

(See Austin v. American Ass'n of Neurological Surgeons, supra, 253 F.3d at pp. 971-974; Joseph v. Board of Medicine (D.C.App. 1991) 587 A.2d 1085 , 1086-1091 .) … (a); see Brown v. Colm (1974) 11 Cal.3d 639 , 643-644 .) The judge presiding over the trial is responsible for determining whether a witness qualifies as an expert. (See Evid.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 7, 1992

Brown Act (Gov. Code, §§ 54950-54962; hereafter "Brown Act")1 generally requires that the legislative bodies of cities, counties, and other local public agencies conduct their meetings in public. … Board of Supervisors (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 839, 846; Williamson v.

Opinion No. (2006)

California Attorney General Reports · Apr 4, 2006

Brown Act (Gov. Code, §§ 54950-54963). … (See Conger v. Gilmer (1867) 32 Cal. 75 [board of supervisors could reconsider appointment before issuing appointee a commission].)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Jun 10, 1996

The two questions presented for resolution concern the circumstances and conditions under which the meetings of the board's subcommittee must be open to the public. The Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. … (See Frazer v.

Opinion No. (2000)

California Attorney General Reports · Oct 3, 2000

(Pacific States Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Coachella (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1414 , 1424 .) A city's redevelopment agency is a "local agency" and its board is a "legislative body" for purposes of the Brown Act. … In reaching our conclusion, we are mindful that the Brown Act is to be interpreted liberally in favor of open meetings and that exceptions are to be narrowly construed. (San Diego Union v.

Opinion No. (2004)

California Attorney General Reports · Apr 7, 2004

(Brown v. West Covina Toyota (1994) 26 Cal.4th 555, 565-566 .) "Where two codes are to be construed, they must be regarded as blending into each other and forming a single statute. [Citations.]" (Meninga v. … Raley "s Inc. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 79 , 90 ; accord, Austin v. Board of Retirement (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1528 , 1532 .) 4 In Hunt v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Nov 12, 1992

Brown Act (§§ 54950- 54962). 3. … "The board of supervisors is the legislative body of the city . . . under the Brown Act. . . . The task force at issue, however, was formed by the mayor . . . ." (Id., at p. 1075.)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Mar 4, 1999

LAFCOs fall within the statutory definition of “legislative body” as a board or commission of a local agency. (§ 54952.) In the pamphlet, The Brown Act, Open Meetings For Local Legislative Bodies (Cal. … Brown Act. (See Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra, 43 Cal.3d at 1389; Morris v.

Opinion No. (2011)

California Attorney General Reports · Aug 22, 2011

supervisors in its capacity as an appointing authority. 9 See also Brown v. … the district, from the employees of the district, who implement the board's policies. 11 Boyd v.

Opinion No. (2000)

California Attorney General Reports · Oct 10, 2000

(People v. Owens (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 798 , 803 ; see Anderson v. State Personnel Board (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 761 , 768 ; Warren v. State Personnel Board (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 95 , 104 , 107 ; Cleu v. … Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168 , 181 .) In summary, the 1999 amendment of section 96 did not create new substantive rights for employees.

Opinion No. (2008)

California Attorney General Reports · Jul 10, 2008

BROWN JR. Attorney General GREGORY L. … We therefore construe subdivision (c)(3) as permitting post-service health benefits to be extended to elective board members who received paid health benefits while serving on the board, prior to January 1, 1994.

Opinion No. (2010)

California Attorney General Reports · May 21, 2010

In enacting the Brown Act, the Legislature declared its intent as follows: [T]he Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in … Inc. v. Orange Co. Employees Ret. Sys. , 6 Cal. 4th 821 , 825 (1993). 11 Kleitman v. Super. Ct. , 74 Cal. App. 4th 324 , 331 (1999); see Govt. Code §§ 54953 , 54962 ; Roberts v.