Legal Opinion

Rexstrew v. City of Huntington Park

California Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 1942No. L. A. 18270PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.

In this proceeding in mandamus the trial court entered a judgment reinstating respondents Rexstrew and Cantonwine, respectively, to the positions of fireman and policeman in the city of Huntington Park, California, and directing payment of their salaries from the date of dismissal from service until their reinstatement. The defendant city and its officers have appealed from the judgment.

Huntington Park is a city of the sixth class. (Municipal Corporations Act, Stats. 1883, p. 93, as amended, Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1937, Act 5233.) In 1932 the electors of the city passed an initiative ordinance…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Wiles v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. State Board of Equalization v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Railroad Commission v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Livingstone v. MacGillivrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  5. City of Sacramento v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Jack Allen v. City of Beverly HillsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  2. Caminetti v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Cal.California Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Mass v. Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  4. County of Los Angeles v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  5. City of San Antonio v. WallaceTexas Supreme Court · 1960

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

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

Powered by the Exa API