Casey

Casey v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1734·243 Cal. App. 2d 789·52 Cal. Rptr. 753
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 2, 1966Civ. No. 29851; Civ. No. 29852California2,282 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wood, J.

In these two consolidated actions the plaintiffs, who are widows of policemen or firemen, seek a declaration with respect to pension benefits under the provisions of the charter of respondent City of Los Angeles. On a prior appeal (Atwell v. City of Los Angeles, 201 Cal.App.2d 336 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 462 ]—involving three actions, including the present two, Casey and Bowers), the judgments in the actions were affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions to the trial court to enter judgments in accordance with the opinion on appeal. Upon the retrial of the actions a question arose as to whether the court should receive evidence on the issue of estoppel—the issue that defendants were estopped to assert affirmative defenses to the effect that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and by provisions of the charter regarding the time within which to file claims. The trial court determined that “the law of the case” did not preclude the receiving of evidence on that issue. After receiving the evidence, the court found that defendants were estopped to assert said alleged defenses. Defendants appeal from the judgments.

Appellants (city and commissioners) contend that…

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.