Legal Opinion

Slocomb v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 12, 1961No. Civ. 25531PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWood, P. J.

Defendants’ demurrer to the third amended complaint was sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs failed to amend within the time allowed, and a judgment of dismissal was entered. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment.

It may be stated generally that plaintiffs’ principal point is that they, as civil service employees assigned to duties at the receiving hospital of defendant city, rendered “overtime” services during the past 19 years without compensation, and that they rendered such services without compensation by reason of false representations of defendants that plaintiffs were not entitled…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Jefferson v. J. E. French Co.California Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Jenner v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. Hannon v. MaddenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Spencer v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Talbot v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  2. Noonan v. RousselotCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  3. La Deaux v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. La Deaux v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Miller v. Yokohama Tire CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API