Loeb

County of Sacramento v. Loeb

Good Law
160 Cal. App. 3d 446·1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2553·206 Cal. Rptr. 626
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 27, 1984Civ. 22891California5,476 words

Opinion

Opinion

Carr, J.

In these consolidated proceedings, respondent state officers and agencies (hereafter the State) appeal from the granting of a peremptory writ of mandate to plaintiffs County of Sacramento and the County of Alameda (hereafter the Counties). The dispute centers on the Counties’ claims against the State for amounts concededly underpaid in previous fiscal years for the State’s share of expenditures under the Short-Doyle Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5600 et seq.) The writ issued by the superior court is three-fold: (1) it compels the director of State Department of Mental Health to submit the Counties’ claims to the State Board of Control (Board) with his recommendation that the claims be approved; (2) it commands the Board to determine whether any current appropriation is available for Short-Doyle purposes and, if so, to approve payment of the Counties’ claims from such appropriation; and (3) it requires the State Controller to pay the claims once approved by the Board.

On appeal, the State contends: (1) mandate does not lie to control the Board’s discretion; (2) although there may be current Short-Doyle appropriations, these funds are not “available” as they have already…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.