Legal Opinion
Currieri v. City of Roseville
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 27, 1970No. Civ. 12345PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PIERCE, P. J.
Petitioners are two policemen who were discharged by the City of Roseville. They petitioned for reinstatement and back pay, contending their discharge was illegal since they were permanent (as distinct from probationary) employees who were discharged without a hearing. The city argued that petitioners were still probationary employees and as such subject to summary discharge. Petitioners appeal from the trial court’s denial of their writ of mandate. 1 We hold petitioners’ contention that they had achieved permanent civil service status under the charter of the City of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Johnston v. BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Ferdig v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Wiles v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- McGilllicuddy v. Civil Service CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Marculescu v. City Planning CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- DeYoung v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Welfare Rights Organization v. CrisanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Campen v. GreinerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Charles S. v. Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.