- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SHOEMAKER v. MYERS
Summary of Opinion: Shoemaker v. Myers; Brodehl v. Becker; People v. Prather; Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena
Factual and Procedural Background
The provided document is a short Court of Appeal of California entry dated 1990 captioning four cases: Shoemaker v. Myers; Brodehl v. Becker; People v. Prather; and Pasadena Police Officers Association v. City of Pasadena. The entry includes cross-references to related Supreme Court opinions (see citations below) and contains the notation "REVIEWS GRANTED." No substantive factual background or the underlying events giving rise to the lawsuits are stated in the provided text.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| 52 Cal.3d 1 | This information was not available in the provided opinion. |
This information was not available in the provided opinion. |
| 227 Cal.App.3d 1016 | This information was not available in the provided opinion. |
This information was not available in the provided opinion. |
| 50 Cal.3d 428 | This information was not available in the provided opinion. |
This information was not available in the provided opinion. |
| 51 Cal.3d 564 | This information was not available in the provided opinion. |
This information was not available in the provided opinion. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The text of the provided entry contains no substantive legal analysis. It functions as a procedural notice indicating that review has been granted in the captioned matters and provides pointers to Supreme Court opinions for related disposition(s). No step‑by‑step reasoning, statutory interpretation, or application of legal principles appears in the excerpt.
Holding and Implications
REVIEWS GRANTED
Direct effect: the entry notifies that review has been granted for the listed cases. The document does not state any further rulings, remedies, or substantive holdings on the merits of the underlying disputes. The opinion excerpt does not announce any new legal precedent or elaborate broader legal implications beyond the procedural grant of review.
REVIEWS GRANTED
Alert