Conti

Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners

Good Law
1 Cal. 3d 351
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 10, 1969L. A. No. 29660California6,640 words

Opinion

concurrence Opinion

McComb, J.

I concur in the judgment of reversal but not in all the statements in the opinion.

lead Opinion

Tobriner, J.

Petitioner 1 Albert Conti brings mandamus to compel respondents City of Los Angeles and Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles to vacate the proceedings of the board of December 17 and 29, 1965, at which the board sustained the discharge of petitioner as a blacksmith with the Department of Water and Power. Although we reject petitioner’s contention that the board is estopped to dispute his reinstatement, we hold, in accord with the findings of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, that these proceedings denied him procedural due process in that the petitioner neither obtained an opportunity to speak at the December 17 hearing nor received notice of the December 29 meeting. The principal issue presented by the case, however, is whether laches bars petitioner’s action. Respondents rely upon Wolsten *355 holme v. City of Oakland (1960) 54 Cal.2d 48 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 351 P.2d 321 ], for the proposition that in a reinstatement action prejudice must be presumed from undue delay; we conclude that this proposition cannot be justified and the case should be overruled. Consequently, since we do not presume prejudice, and since respondents did not…

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.