Clark v. FAIR OAKS RECREATION AND PARK DIST.

Good Law
106 Cal. App. 4th 336·131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 760·2003 WL 972068
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 11, 2003C038830California403 words

Opinion

Opinion

THE COURT.

Appellant Fair Oaks Recreation and Park District (Fair Oaks) petitions for rehearing.

Appellant Fair Oaks contended in its opening brief that it was entitled to equitable indemnity from Columbia Cascade. In our opinion, we rejected this argument, although we used a legal theory not tendered by Columbia Cascade.

Fair Oaks contends rehearing is mandated by Government Code section 68081 (section 68081) because this court allegedly decided an issue not briefed by the parties.

As we shall explain, Fair Oaks's position does not accurately reflect the meaning of section 68081 and the petition for rehearing is not meritorious.

Section 68081 provides: "Before the Supreme Court, a court of appeal, or the appellate division of a superior court renders a decision in a proceeding other than a summary denial of a petition for an extraordinary writ, based upon an issue which was not proposed or briefed by any party to the proceeding, the court shall afford the parties an opportunity to present their views on the matter through supplemental briefing. If the court fails to afford that opportunity, a rehearing shall be ordered upon timely petition of any party."

The legislative…

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.