Legal Opinion

Coombs v. Smith

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 13, 1936No. Civ. 11089PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WHITE, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus requiring respondents to pay to appellant the sum of $1869.02.

The material facts are that appellant entered the employ of the department of city planning of the city of Los Angeles in December, 1926, and served continuously until July 31, 1930, when he was regularly appointed to the position of director-manager of the department of city planning of the city of Los Angeles, under section 79 of the charter of said city. He served continuously in this capacity until the termination of his…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Police Commissioner v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  2. Northrup v. HaynesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  3. Black v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  4. Burbank v. HamiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  5. Butler v. Inhabitants of City of PlainfieldSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1927

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Tevis v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Elevator Operators & Starters' Union v. NewmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Wenzler v. Municipal Court for the Pasadena Judicial DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  4. Acton v. HendersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Newbury v. Civil Service CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API