Legal Opinion
Hayman v. City of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 27, 1936No. Civ. 10992PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SHINN, J., pro tem.
The peremptory writ of mandate directed to be issued by the judgment, which was granted on the pleadings, ordered respondents City of Los Angeles, Civil Service Commission of said city, and the Board of Public Works of said city to restore and reinstate petitioner to a position theretofore held by him under the classified civil service of the City of Los Angeles as a motor truck driver in one of the city departments.
It was shown by the petition that on March 1, 1935, petitioner was served with notice of suspension for thirty days. On March 7th, he demanded in writing an…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cahill v. Superior Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1904
- Donovan v. Board of Police CommissionersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Chaplin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Kramer v. Board of Police CommissionersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Harby v. Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Board of Education v. Dresden SwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Conti v. Board of Civil Service CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Conti v. Board of Civil Service CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- W. R. Grace & Co. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Blake v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.