Reynolds v. City of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
1Dissent
COMPTON, J.—I dissent.
In my opinion, on the basis of this record, the majority’s deference to the trial court’s fact finding power is not justified. True, the trial court as the determiner of the credibility of the witnesses, credited Lieutenant Salvino’s testimony as to what occurred in the critical conversation which preceded Reynold’s resignation, but an analysis of that conversation, even as portrayed by Lieutenant Salvino, leads to the inescapable conclusion that Reynolds was the victim of a constructive fraud.
It should be observed at the outset that following the critical conversation…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Kern v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Whitfield v. RothCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.