Legal Opinion

Murphy v. City of Piedmont

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 18, 1936No. Civ. 10209PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.

The petitioner sued the City of Piedmont and certain designated officials for a writ of mandate to compel them to entertain and determine her application for a pension as the widow of a former chief of the city fire department. The cause was tried on an agreed statement of facts, and the petitioner had judgment.

The conceded facts are that deceased was chief of the fire department from August 16, 1930, to December 27, 1932, the date of his death; the city is governed by a freeholders’ charter adopted February 27, 1923; on February 26, 1929, this charter was amended by adding section 37-a,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Civic Center Ass'n of Los Angeles v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  2. City of Pasadena v. CharlevilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. In Re NowakCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. In Re Application of GalushaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Casserly v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Axberg v. City of LincolnNebraska Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Adams v. WolffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  4. Talbott v. Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1941
  5. Brooks v. Pension BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938

8 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