Legal Opinion

Coffey v. Way

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 15, 1932No. Docket Nos. 3882, 3883PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

JAMISON, J., pro tem.

These proceedings for writs of mandate were brought by plaintiffs to compel defendants, in their official capacity, as the mayor and city council of the city of Eureka, to abstain from refusing to permit plaintiffs to perform their duties as policemen of the said city of Eureka, and to abstain from refusing to permit them the use, enjoyment and emoluments of said offices. Upon the hearing of the said matters judgments were rendered for defendants, and from these judgments plaintiffs have appealed. The plaintiff Harry E. Abers having dismissed his appeal, the cases of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hopping v. Council of City of RichmondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Bannerman v. BoyleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Matter of CarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Boyd v. PendegastCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  5. Hyde v. WildeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Drake v. QuinnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API