Spier v. Peck
California Court of Appeal
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District to compel a county treasurer to pay the warrant of a county probation officer for acting as superintendent of the detention home. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
WORKS, J., pro tem.
Petitioner is probation officer of the county of Ventura and is also acting under appointment as superintendent of the detention home for the same county, both of the offices, or positions, having their existence under what is known as the Juvenile Court Act (Stats. 1915, p. 1225, Deering’s Gen. Laws, Act No. 1770a). The law fixes petitioner’s salary as probation officer at one hundred dollars per month and as superintendent of the detention home at fifty dollars per month. Section 18 of the Juvenile Court Act provides, among other things, “All probation officers . . .…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bannerman v. BoyleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Murphy v. City of San Luis ObispoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Hannon v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
- Madary v. City of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Odell v. RihnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In Re PetraeusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Snyder v. City of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Chalmers v. CayneDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
- Christian v. BetakDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
- EcoHub, LLC v. Recology Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2025
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.