Profile of Justice Daniel J. Kremer

Copyright and Trademark Notice | Disclaimer | Revised: 5/28/00

Use the Profile Comment Form to submit your own impressions for inclusion on this page.

Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One

Appointed by: Governor Deukmejian, 1985

Born: November 21, 1937 in Olympia, Washington

Education: BA, Stanford 1960; JD, Stanford 1963

Law Practice: California Deputy Attorney General (1964-83)

Judicial Appointments: San Diego County Superior Court (1983-85); Fourth District Court of Appeal (1985-present)

Opinions Reported in Appellate Decisions Noted:

• Settling defendants under "Mary Carter" agreement may appear as litigants at trial
• Absolute litigation privilege protects pre-litigation conduct
• A lesson on how to handle the client who wishes to lie at trial
• Co-employees not liable for conduct related to personnel actions (Dissent)

Additional Sources of Information:

• Justice Kremer's biography at the California Courts site

Comments from Visitors to the Appellate Counsellor Home Page:

Ronald Williams (12/1/97)

My gratitude goes out to Justices Kremer, Huffman and Haller, for the decision in Michael Lucus vs. State of California, No. D026856 (Oct. 22, 1997). In that decision, the Justices circum- vented the employer's capricious, arbitrary use of the employee's pension rights, as adverse authority over employment. The Justices looked to the "event" that controlled the dispute, that being the act of terminating the employee's employment. Instead of relying on the conduct of the employee when he exercised his pension rights after being terminated from his employment.

Lucas vs. State of California is a far cry from what other Justices of the State Court of Appeals perpetrated in Williams vs. City of LA, 229 Cal.App.3d 1627 (May 10, 1991). Contrary to Lucas, the Justices in "Williams, 1991" constructed a provision of the City employer's pension plan, as law that governed the grant of a pension after a termination, as authority that nullified employee Williams' fundamental right to due process of law. The Williams' appeals court applied the pension ordinance retroactively (ex post facto) to nullify the judgment employee Williams had gained that set aside the termination of his employment.

The Williams' State appeals court demonstrated that it had no regard for either the California or the U.S. Constitution in reaching 229 Cal.App.3d 1627 (May 10, 1991). It contravenes the State's Constitution to enable a City to preempt State court decisions under State law, by a municipal ordinance. It contravenes the U.S. Constitution, to deprive a public employee the right to a judgment that restored public employment. Such deprivations-  is violative of the protections under the 5th and 14th Amendment.

The errant justices deciding Williams vs. City of LA, 229 Cal.App.3d 1627 were Justices Ashby, (ret.) Boren and Grignon.

Privacy Policy

URL for this page http://www.appellate-counsellor.com/profiles/kremer.htm