Legal Opinion
Brooks v. Pension Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 22, 1938No. Civ. 10616PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WARD, J., pro tem.
— The question presented by this appeal from a judgment denying a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate is whether appellant, a. retired police officer of the city of Alameda, is entitled to a pension of one-half or two-thirds of his salary.
On April 26, 1932, appellant on active duty sustained injuries which resulted in functional disability consisting of limitation of motion in the use of his left arm. On October 5, 1932, he applied for a pension under section 3 of the then effective Ordinance No. 276, New Series, which provided for the retirement of members of the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Dryden v. Board of Pension CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Klench v. Board of Pension Fund CommissionersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Aitken v. RocheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Casserly v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Douglas v. Pension BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Kern v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Wallace v. City of FresnoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Terry v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Dickey v. Retirement BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Tyra v. Board of Police & Fire Pension CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.