Legal Opinion

Cashin v. Dunn

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1881No. 7,954PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Application for writ of mandamus.

1Opinion of the Court

Sharpstein, J.:

Some time prior to July, 1881, the plaintiff was appointed a deputy in the office of the Superintendent of Streets of the City and County of San Francisco at a salary of one hundred and fifty dollars per month. By an act of the Legislature of this State approved March 2d, 1878 (Laws 1877-78, p. 139), it is provided that said Superintendent “ shall be allowed not more than sixteen deputies, to be appointed by him, from time to time; three of said deputies shall receive a salary of two hundred dollars per month each, and six of said deputies shall receive a salary of one hundred…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. American Co. v. City of LakeportCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Lewis v. WidberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. County of Los Angeles v. ByramCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Federal Construction Co. v. WoldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  5. Harrison v. HortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907

2 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