Friday, December 22, 2017

Lippman v. City of Oakland, A141865

Writ of mandate:

"A traditional writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is a method for compelling a public entity to perform a legal and usually ministerial duty." (American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Metropolitan Water District (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 247, 261.)
“In reviewing a trial court’s judgment on a petition for writ of ordinary mandate, . . . we exercise our independent judgment on legal issues, such as the interpretation of statutory . . . provisions.” (Kreeft v. City of Oakland (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 46, 53.)

In interpreting a statute, “we begin as always with the fundamental premise that the objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent."  To discover that intent we first look to the words of the statute, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. Where the words of the statute are clear, we may not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history. (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 280.)

(Cal. Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, filed Dec. 22, 2017, Cert. for Pub. Jan. 22, 2018, Lippman v. City of Oakland, A141865).

La base légale du writ of mandate.

No comments:

Post a Comment