Legal Opinion

Northrup v. Haynes

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 29, 1936No. Civ. 10993PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Police Commissioner v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  2. Black v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  3. Burbank v. HamiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  4. Butler v. Inhabitants of City of PlainfieldSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1927

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Tevis v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Elevator Operators & Starters' Union v. NewmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Irvine v. GibsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Wenzler v. Municipal Court for the Pasadena Judicial DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. California School Employees Ass'n v. Azusa Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984

6 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