Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gowanlock v. Turner

California Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1954No. S. F. 18593, 18640Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CARTER,, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I adopt as my concurring and dissenting opinion in this case the able and well-reasoned opinion prepared by Justice Wood, which was concurred in by Justices Peters and Bray, when this case was before the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One.

“The petitioners, permanent employees of the city and county of San Francisco, platform men and bus operators in the operating department of the municipal railway system, brought this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, to determine a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Buxbom v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. United States v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. Adams v. WolffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  4. Woods v. City of WoburnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  5. Adams v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949

5 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