Adler

Adler v. City of Pasadena

Good Law
1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1013·229 Cal. App. 2d 518·40 Cal. Rptr. 373
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 3, 1964Docket Nos. 28113, 28114, 28115, 28116California4,738 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kingsley, J.

This proceeding involves consolidated appeals by plaintiffs (with the exception of plaintiffs Nelson and Pieper, who have not appealed from the judgment), and by defendants from a judgment determining that defendants are liable to plaintiffs for unpaid pension benefits which accrued within six months prior to the filing of a formal claim therefor. Defendants’ appeals are concerned with the sole issue of whether or not the plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to the provisions of section 3287 of the Civil Code. Plaintiffs’ appeals are primarily concerned with the issue of whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid pension benefits which accrued within six months prior to the filing of a formal claim therefor, instead of those unpaid pension benefits which accrued from and after six months prior to the filing, in the year 1958, of written applications for the payment of increased pension benefits. Plaintiff Burris in his appeal has raised the additional issue of whether the trial court erred in determining that his pension should be based upon the rank of “Sergeant” rather than “Motorcycle Sergeant.”

A history of this complex litigation, pertinent to the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.