Dillon v. Bicknell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lucien Shaw, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Haynes, C.
Plaintiff was elected district attorney of Los Angeles county at the general election in November, 1892, and entered upon his said office on the second day of January, 1893, that being the first Monday after the first day of January, and his term of office *112expired on the seventh day of January, 1895, that being also the first Monday after the first day of January of that year. The salary was four thousand dollars per annum, and he received from the salary fund of the county eight thousand dollars, which was paid him in monthly installments of three hundred and thirty-three and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ex parte BenjaminCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Treadwell v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Charnock v. RoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- Neuber v. Royal Realty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
- Sponogle v. CurnowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Fenton v. Markwell & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
- Rice v. National CityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Alameda County v. DaltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.