gno.law

Dodge v. Board of Police Commissioners

California Court of Appeal · No. 59. · 1905-09-19 · Published · 82 P. 699 · 1 Cal. App. 608 · 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 179

EDWARD E. DODGE, Respondent, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS Et Al., Appellants

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco
Trial judges
J. C. B. Hebbard; J. C. B. Hebhard
Outcome
other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Franklin K.
Area
civil
Panel
Candace D. Cooper (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Cooper

COOPER, J.

Application for writ of mandate.

The petition alleges that the defendants, acting as the board of police commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, did on or about the twelfth day of June, 1893, dismiss the plaintiff from his position of patrolman of the police force of the city and county of San Francisco. The petition for the writ was filed March 6, 1902.

In the case of Jones v. Board of Police Commissioners, 141 Cal. 96, [74 Pac. 696], an action similar to the present, it was held that the cause of action was barred by subdivision 1 of section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also by section 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That ease was followed and approved by this court in Farrell v. Board of Police Commissioners, filed May 24, 1905, ante, p. 5, [81 Pac. 674].

Under the authority of these cases the judgment in this case is reversed.

Harrison, P. J., and Hall, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by