Legal Opinion

Boyarsky v. Ross

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 2, 1932No. Docket No. 8454PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.

This is a proceeding in mandamus. In his petition the petitioner sets forth that on the ninth day of October, 1931, he was appointed as a deputy clerk in the Justice’s Court of Oakland Township in Alameda County and that thereafter he qualified and ever since has been a duly appointed, qualified and acting clerk in said court; that the salary attached to said position is fixed by section 103 c of the Code of Civil Procedure in the sum of $180 per month; that since the date of his appointment the amount of salary earned prior to the filing of this application was the sum of $198.56; that the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bateman v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Longan v. County of SolanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Wood v. Board of Election CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  4. People Ex Rel. Richardson v. CobbCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Kilroy v. WhitmoreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Schoenfeld v. NorbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  2. Los Angeles Brewing Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  3. Los Angeles County Employees Ass'n v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API