not the officers, to respond to the concerns the officers expressed in their press conference. The February 3 meeting had nothing to do with the officers’ allegation that the City violated its hiring practice, but instead concerned the internal operation of the Beaumont Police Department. The reprimands were issued not because of anything that was reported, but be ination on either the text of the state constitutions or the relationship between those constitutions and other bodies of state laws. See, e.g., HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 508, 125 Cal.Rptr. 365, 542 P.2d 237 (1975) (noting that the remedy for improper legislative acts is undoing the wrongful act and not in money damages), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct. 1495, 47 L.Ed.2d 754 (1976); Widgeon, 479 A.2d at 921 (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Dep’t of Revenue, 313 Or. 1, 828
holding that a direct action could not be maintained because the declaration does not allege the violation of any right personal to plaintiff but only violation of rights common to all the stockholders holding that in a bankruptcy proceeding state law governs the rights of the parties with regard to interests in property holding that where an individual is deprived of liberty or property interests in violation of article of the state declaration of rights he may enforce those rights by a common law action for damages holding that it is well settled that while one tenant in common may acquire homestead rights in the common property the rights so acquired are not superior to the rights and remedies of the other joint owners he can acquire no such rights as will prejudice or in anywise interfere with the rights of the other tenants in common holding that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by congress courts may not create a cause of action absent statutory intent