Sevina v. Hickok
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.
Plaintiff sued in mandamus to require respondents to place them upon the pension roll of the city of Alameda. The cases were consolidated for trial and were heard by the court sitting without a jury. Judgment went for respondents in both eases and the plaintiffs appeal upon a single typewritten transcript.
While the appellants were members of the police department of the city of Alameda they were indicted by the federal grand jury for conspiracy to violate the federal prohibition act. Pending their trial in the federal court they were duly suspended from office by order of the chief of police…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Garvin v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Bannerman v. BoyleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Boyd v. PendegastCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- French v. CookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Sheehan v. Board of Police CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- DiGenova v. State Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Chamski v. Wayne County Board of AuditorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- Wallace v. Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Hogan v. Retirement BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- McColgan v. Board of Police CommissionersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.