Legal Opinion
Acton v. Henderson
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 9, 1957No. Civ. 17629; Civ. 17654; Civ. 17642PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, P. J.
These three petitions for mandamus have been consolidated for consideration. Each prays that this court compel respondents, who are the appropriate' officials of the city and county, to take the steps necessary to pay the salary claimed to have been earned by each petitioner as an employee of the city and county. The petitioners are Thomas A. Brooks, the chief administrative officer of the city and county, William B. Acton, principal attorney in the office of the district attorney, and Walter Heil, director of the M. H. deYoung Memorial Museum. The respondents are William L. Henderson,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Home Insurance v. New York StateSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Cal. Drive-In Restaurant Assn. v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Butterworth v. BoydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Hollman v. WarrenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- In Re HerreraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Resources BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Brown v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- County of Butte v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Lucchesi v. City of San JoseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Larsen v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.