Northrup v. Haynes
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
McCOMB, J., pro tem.
This is an appeal from an order granting respondents’ petition for a writ of mandamus requiring appellants to pay to each of respondents the sum of $612.
The facts so far as material are:
Petitioners were improperly refused employment in the department of water and power for 72 working days and, after reinstatement to their positions, each sought through a writ of mandate to recover from the appellants the sum of $612.
This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:
Is a writ of mandate, where reinstatement is not sought, a proper remedy for recovery of wages due a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Police Commissioner v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Black v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Burbank v. HamiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Butler v. Inhabitants of City of PlainfieldSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1927
3Cited by11 opinions
- Tevis v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Elevator Operators & Starters' Union v. NewmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Irvine v. GibsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Wenzler v. Municipal Court for the Pasadena Judicial DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- California School Employees Ass'n v. Azusa Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.