Legal Opinion
Geimann v. Board of Police Commr's.
California Supreme Court
Decided December 13, 1910No. S.F. No. 5378PublishedCited by 20 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiff sued for mandate against the chief of police, board of police commissioners, the auditor, and the treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, to compel the approval and payment of his salary demand as police officer for the month of July, 1906. Judgment passed for defendants and plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff, with other police officers, was compelled by the chief of police to take leave of absence without pay for the month of July, 1906, after the earthquake and fire. His action is to enforce his demand for salary for the month when he was thus upon compulsory leave of absence.
R…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tynan v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Farmers & Merchs.' Bank of L.A. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Jones v. . City of AlbanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Vandall v. TeagueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Paxson v. HoltCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by20 opinions
- Dryden v. Board of Pension CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Beeson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- People v. Bestline Products, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- Shell Oil Co. v. RichterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.