Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Merced County Sheriff’s Employees’ Ass'n v. County of Merced

Court of Appeal of California
233 Cal. Rptr. 519 (1987)


Facts

The County of Merced (County) (defendant) contracted with Merced County Sheriff’s Employees’ Association (SA) (plaintiff) and Merced County Professional Firefighters’ Association Local 1396 (FA) (plaintiff) regarding salary increases. Both contracts said the parties would conduct a nine-county survey of deputy salaries and the “percentage differentials” would be used to determine the average salary for those positions. Wage increases would be based on percentages of “said average,” with the percentages applied to “the actual differential determined by the survey.” The FA contract contained additional language, basing wages on a percentage of the “Deputy Sheriff II average in the survey area.” County representative Gregory Wellman calculated the projected wage increase as a percentage of the 13.66 percent differential in pay between Merced deputies’ average wage and the nine-county average. A handwritten note from Wellman stated “% Difference (13.66) x .90 = 12.294.” County attorney William Gnass told the FA the purpose of the language was to keep their salary 5 percent below the deputies’ salary. Gnass said that the percentage for wage increases would apply to average salaries determined in the survey, not the differential in salary. After the contracts were signed, the parties disagreed about their meaning. The SA and FA argued that the percentage increases applied to the differential between the deputies’ salary and the nine-county average salary. The County argued the percentages applied to the nine-county average salary. The SA and FA sued the County.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Franson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.