Legal Opinion

Burbank v. Hamilton

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 22, 1923No. Civ. No. 4699PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSt. Sure, J.

Mandate. Petitioner is a police officer of the city of Oakland, who was sent by his superior, the chief of police, to San Diego for the purpose of executing a felony warrant of arrest issued out of the police court of the city of Oakland. Subsequently he filed with the board of supervisors of Alameda County a claim against said county in the sum of $105.12, for his personal expenses incurred and paid in executing the warrant of arrest. The board of supervisors rejected the claim and petitioner seeks to compel its payment by this proceeding.

Respective counsel for petitioner and respondents…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Dufton v. DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Northrup v. HaynesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  2. Coombs v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  3. Adams v. County of San JoaquinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. County of Tulare v. WoodyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API