Mullins

Mullins v. Toothman

Good Law
1965 Cal. App. LEXIS 1564·231 Cal. App. 2d 756·42 Cal. Rptr. 254
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 1965Civ. No. 21635California4,438 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Devine, J.

Plaintiff, a police sergeant acting on behalf of himself and other police officers who claim to be assigned to duties beyond their civil service rating, obtained a writ of mandate against the chief of police, the city manager, the auditor and controller, the city council, and the City of Oakland; and from the judgment ordering the writ comes this appeal. Two sets of officers are involved, namely, 18 or 19 sergeants † and five patrolmen.

The Sergeants

The whole case shows a purpose of the chief of police, candidly stated by him at the trial and before the city council to make the office of inspector a “terminal” one, that is, to bring about gradually its abolition as the incumbent inspectors *759 retire, die, or are promoted. His further purpose is to substitute sergeants to perforin the duties formerly done almost exclusively by inspectors.

Section 27, subdivisions (1) and (4) of the city charter place the police department under the city manager. Section 87 lists ten ranks of police officers, from chief of police to patrolman, and the list includes inspector and sergeant. The section provides that it shall not be incumbent on the city council to create or fill all of 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.