Clarke v. Reis
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
This action was brought for the purpose of forcing, by writ of mandate, the respondent to pay the appellant, who was the assignee of a claim of a dismissed police-officer, one Pugh, the amount of $256 principal, and costs and damages to the amount of $25.
This sum of money was claimed under and by virtue of an act of the legislature approved April 1, 1878. (Stats. 1878, p. 879.)
It is asserted that the two dollars per month which the police-officer claims to have paid into the fund held by the treasurer was money in which he had a vested *544right, and that on his discharge he was entitled…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pennie v. ReisSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Pennie v. ReisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by12 opinions
- Kern v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Klench v. Board of Pension Fund CommissionersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Packer v. Board of RetirementCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Cheney v. City & County of San Francisco Employees Retirement SystemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Clarke v. Police & Health Insurance BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.