Legal Opinion
Mullins v. Toothman
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 21, 1965No. Civ. No. 21635PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDevine, J.
Plaintiff, a police sergeant acting on behalf of himself and other police officers who claim to be assigned to duties beyond their civil service rating, obtained a writ of mandate against the chief of police, the city manager, the auditor and controller, the city council, and the City of Oakland; and from the judgment ordering the writ comes this appeal. Two sets of officers are involved, namely, 18 or 19 sergeants† and five patrolmen.
The Sergeants
The whole case shows a purpose of the chief of police, candidly stated by him at the trial and before the city council to make the office of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mass v. Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Martin v. HendersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Buck v. City of EurekaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Lorenson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Welshans v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Tripp v. SwoapCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Todd Shipyards Corp. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Todd Shipyards Corp. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Tripp v. SwoapCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976