Mitchell v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
239 Cal. App. 2d 618
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 26, 1966Civ. 28838; Civ. 28839; Civ. 28840California3,380 words

Opinion

Opinion

Herndon, J.

The various plaintiffs have appealed from judgments entered in three separate eases consolidated for trial. Defendants have also appealed from a portion of the judgment relating to the allowance of interest. Since joint briefs have been filed herein and the issues presented for our consideration are common to all three cases, no purpose would be served by our delineating in detail the particular parties hereto. It is sufficient to state that each of the plaintiffs is either a retired member of the Los Angeles Fire or Police Department or the widow of a former member of one of such departments.

Most of the issues initially presented by plaintiffs’ complaints filed herein were disposed of in Henry v. City of Los Angeles, 201 Cal.App.2d 299 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 440 ]. We regard two of their remaining contentions urged before the trial court and again on this appeal as being without substantial merit.

Plaintiffs’ first contention relates to the effect of the 1957 amendment to section 181½ of the Los Angeles City Charter. The history of the various sections of the charter dealing with pension rights has been spelled out in the Henry case, supra, and in Abbott v. City of Los Angeles, 50…

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.