Sevina

Sevina v. Hickok

Good Law
113 Cal. App. 301·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 923·298 P. 116
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 9, 1931Docket No. 7526.California1,250 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nourse, J.

Plaintiff sued in mandamus to require respondents to place them upon the pension roll of the city of Alameda. The cases were consolidated for trial and were heard by the court sitting without a jury. Judgment went for respondents in both eases and the plaintiffs appeal upon a single typewritten transcript.

While the appellants were members of the police department of the city of Alameda they were indicted by the federal grand jury for conspiracy to violate the federal prohibition act. Pending their trial in the federal court they were duly suspended from office by order of the chief of police and city manager. On September 24, 1929, following their acquittal ■in the federal court, the appellants were both removed from office by the city manager, the order of removal reciting that the cause of such removal was “notorious and consecutive insubordination and neglect of duty”. On March 18, 1930, both appellants applied to the pension board of the city of Alameda to be retired upon a pension under the terms of the so-called “Pension Ordinance” of the city. These appliea tions were, after a hearing conducted by the pension board, both denied.

It is conceded that the police department…

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.