DeCelle

DeCelle v. City of Alameda

Good Law
186 Cal. App. 2d 574·1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 1670·9 Cal. Rptr. 549
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 22, 1960Civ. 19226California2,571 words

Opinion

Opinion

McGOLDRICK, J.

Robert B. DeCelle petitioned for alternative and peremptory writs of mandate directing the city of Alameda to pay him a disability pension pursuant to its Ordinance No. 1079 New Series. The alternative writ issued and the parties stipulated that the cause be submitted for decision upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts. Judgment was for petitioner, and from that judgment and the peremptory writ of mandamus entered in accordance therewith, the city of Alameda now appeals.

The agreed statement of facts indicates that respondent was first employed by appellant as a member of its fire department on December 12, 1941, and that he was thereafter continuously so employed and upon active duty until on or about January 18, 1955. On that date, and at all times thereafter until the termination of his employment by appellant, respondent held the position of lieutenant in said department. On February 18 of that year respondent filed a written application with the pension board of the city of Alameda (hereafter referred to as “the board”) for his retirement on the pension provided for in section 12 of the above-mentioned ordinance. By mutual agreement between the parties, a…

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.