Legal Opinion · Dissent

Milliken v. Zarnow

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 7, 1934No. 13,021Published

1DissentJustice Bouck

From the majority opinion I respectfully dissent.

In April, 1929, Zarnow, the defendant in error, passed the regular examination given by the Denver civil service commission for the position of patrolman in the police department. His name was duly certified by the commission to Bratton, manager of safety and excise, among those eligible for appointment. He was accordingly appointed as a patrolman on January 1, 1931.

Section 200 in the charter of the City and County of Denver (Denver Municipal Code of 1927, §234) reads as follows: “Every original appointment in the classified service shall be…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bishop & Chapter of the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist v. Treasurer of Arapahoe CountySupreme Court of Colorado · 1901
  2. Howard v. FisherSupreme Court of Colorado · 1929
  3. Sternberger v. Seaton Mining Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1909
  4. Mountz v. AptSupreme Court of Colorado · 1911
  5. Nisbet v. FrinckeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919

1 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