McKesson v. Lowery
California Supreme Court
1DissentTraynor, J.
I dissent.
Since 1899 the courts of this state have consistently held that the phrase “his term of office” in article XI, section 5, of the California Constitution means, not the period during which the incumbent holds the office, but the full period of time prescribed by law for the office. (Larew v. Newman, 81 Cal. 588, 590 [23 P. 227]; Storke v. Goux, 129 Cal. 526, 527 [62 P. 68]; Harrison v. Colgan, 148 Cal. 69, 73-75 [82 P. 674]; Robbins v. Lambert, 43 Cal.App.2d 463, 465 [111 P.2d 5].) Accordingly, there cannot be any increase in salary during the statutory term “regardless of the fact…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Harrison v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Rutledge v. City of EurekaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Larew v. NewmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Wilson v. ShawSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Storke v. GouxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.