Pootel v. City & County of San Francisco
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
GIBSON (Lilburn), J. pro tem.*
We are satisfied the judgment in this case may not be upheld.
The respondent was a member of the San Francisco Police Department from June 19, 1914 until his retirement on June 30, 1950. During this time he served in the capacity of patrolman, sergeant, lieutenant, captain of traffic and director of traffic, and in the course of his said employment worked several hours overtime. Prior to February 13,1937, no records of overtime were kept in the central files of the police department, but in that year, in accordance with an order of the chief of police, all records…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Martin v. HendersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Treu v. KirkwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Bruce v. Civil Service BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Jarvis v. HendersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Viner v. Civil Service CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
3Cited by7 opinions
- Adams v. City of ModestoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Koudelka v. Village of WoodridgeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
- City of Fayetteville v. BibbCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1989
- Welshans v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Mullins v. ToothmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.