Legal Opinion
McGilllicuddy v. Civil Service Commission
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 22, 1933No. Docket No. 8837PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.
Six of the plaintiffs were trackmen and the seventh was a car repairer in the employ of the City and County of San Francisco. On April 8, 1932, plaintiffs were removed from their respective positions by defendants without cause and without an opportunity to be heard. Other persons were immediately employed to fill said positions. Claiming the benefits of the civil service regulations, plaintiffs brought this action for declaratory relief. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
Section 142 of the new charter of the City and County of San Francisco (Stats. 1931, p. 2973),…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Powers v. Board of Public WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Rodgers v. Board of Public WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Gilbert v. Civil Service CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Rodrigue v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
3Cited by19 opinions
- Evelyn Jenkins v. County of Riverside Kenneth B. Cohen, in His Official CapacityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- McAdams v. BarbieriSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- Jenkins v. County of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Currieri v. City of RosevilleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- People Ex Rel. Sterba v. BlaserAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.