Legal Opinion

Oppenheimer v. Arnold

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 17, 1950No. Civ. 17835PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.

Prom the order sustaining demurrer to his complaint, from the adverse judgment entered upon such order, and from the order denying his motion to vacate that judgment, plaintiff has appealed. Since both orders are nonappealable the ensuing discussion pertains only to the validity of the decree.

Appellant alleged that defendant Arnold was the county engineer and Pore was his assistant chief deputy; that he was employed by Los Angeles County as an engineering aid in the department of county engineer and surveyor; that he was appointed to a permanent position from a civil service eligible list May…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Spalding v. VilasSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. White v. BrinkmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  3. Neuwald v. BrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Snelling v. Civil Service BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  5. Caraker v. WebsterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Hardy v. VialCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Martelli v. PollockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. Miller v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961

1 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