Legal Opinion
Byers v. Smith
California Supreme Court
Decided August 2, 1935No. S. F. 15445PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
The petitioners in this ease seek the issuance of the writ of mandate compelling respondent to endorse upon the payroll of the city of San Diego that petitioners have been elected and appointed to perform services and did perform services for the city during the period from May 3 to May 15, 1935, and that their salary for such services is at the rate claimed in their petition.
The controversy arises out of the following facts: Byers was elected city attorney in 1932. ■ The other petitioners are his assistant and deputies. On February 25, 1935, an accusation b}r the grand jury was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- McKannay v. HortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Lloyd v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Bowman's CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Commonwealth ex rel. Braughler v. WeirSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Commonwealth ex rel. Vesneski v. ReidSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Powers v. City of RichmondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Modern Barber Colleges, Inc. v. California Employment Stabilization CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Leone v. Medical Bd. of Cal.California Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- State Ex Rel. Zempel v. TwitchellWashington Supreme Court · 1962
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.