Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Conger v. Cnty. of Los Angeles

36 Cal.App.5th 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Conger v. Cnty. of Los Angeles

3 Citing cases

  1. Willis v. City of Carlsbad

    48 Cal.App.5th 1104 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 60 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the respondent's argument premised on the absence of a reporter's transcript because it "d[id] not explain how the absence of a reporter's transcript in this case makes it impossible to resolve the merits of [the appellant's] challenge to the trial court's ruling"

    " ’ [Citation.] POBRA's goal is ‘to assure the "maintenance of stable employer–employee relations," and thus to secure "effective law enforcement ... services" for "all people of the state." ’ " ( Conger v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 262, 269, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 394.) One of POBRA's procedural protections is to have speedy adjudication of conduct that could result in discipline.

  2. Joseph v. City of Atwater

    74 Cal.App.5th 974 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Many courts addressing the procedural requirements for an administrative appeal have stated that public safety officers are entitled to an evidentiary hearing before a neutral fact finder. ( Gonzalez v. City of Los Angeles, supra , 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 1043, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 191 ; Conger v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 262, 269, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 394 ; Morgado v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1, 7, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 497.) The more extensive procedural protections applicable to public safety officers who may be terminated only for cause are addressed in Caloca v. County of San Diego (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1209, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 660 ( Caloca I ) and Caloca v. County of San Diego (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 433, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 3 ( Caloca II ).

  3. Gonzalez v. City of Los Angeles

    42 Cal.App.5th 1034 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    ( Binkley v. City of Long Beach (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1795, 1806, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 903.) "[P]ublic safety officers are entitled to ‘ "an evidentiary hearing before a neutral fact finder." ’ " ( Conger v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 262, 269, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, quoting Morgado , supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 7, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 497.) Neither Gonzalez nor Uch argues that the Board hearing does not serve that purpose or provide such an evidentiary hearing.