Ryan v. McKinley
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.
Claiming that the defendants, as the Civil Service Commission of San Francisco, had marked his papers incorrectly, the plaintiff commenced a proceeding in mandamus to compel the defendant commission to re-mark his papers. On December 9, 1931, E. A. Hahn, C. A. Spuur and A. J. Canty were given permission to intervene. As the record before us does not show to the contrary, we assume that the application was made ex parte. On December 10, 1931, the trial court made an order denying the application to intervene. Whether that order was made on notice or was made ex parte is immaterial. As the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stern & Goodman Investment Co. v. DanzigerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Dollenmayer v. PryorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Thorpe v. North Moneta Garden Lands Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
- Coburn v. Pacific Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by7 opinions
- Veterans' Industries, Inc. v. LynchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Braun v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- McClearen v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- City of St. Louis v. SilkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1947
- People Ex Rel. State Lands Commission v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.