Hayman

Hayman v. City of Los Angeles

Caution
17 Cal. App. 2d 674·1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 637·62 P.2d 1047
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 27, 1936Civ. 10992California2,809 words

Opinion

Opinion

Shinn, J.

The peremptory writ of mandate directed to be issued by the judgment, which was granted on the pleadings, ordered respondents City of Los Angeles, Civil Service Commission of said city, and the Board of Public Works of said city to restore and reinstate petitioner to a position theretofore held by him under the classified civil service of the City of Los Angeles as a motor truck driver in one of the city departments.

It was shown by the petition that on March 1, 1935, petitioner was served with notice of suspension for thirty days. On March 7th, he demanded in writing an investigation of the grounds of his suspension, and on that day he received from the Civil Service Commission a letter acknowledging receipt of his demand for an investigation and notifying him that at a meeting held March 6th, an order had been made that an investigation of his suspension should be made. The letter also stated, “At the same meeting there was submitted Notice from the Board of Public Works of your discharge to be effective March 1st.” On March 8th, he was notified in writing by the Civil Service Commission as follows: “With further reference to your recent request for an investigation into…

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.