DocketNumber: Docket No. S.F. 11173.
Citation Numbers: 232 P. 696, 195 Cal. 212
Judges: LENNON, J.
Filed Date: 12/31/1924
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
I dissent.
I concur generally with the reasoning and conclusions of Mr. Justice Seawell except that I am not prepared to subscribe to the conclusion that under the language of the Oakland charter the decision of the civil service board is *Page 241
not subject to review by the courts upon certiorari. That review, however, touches only the question of jurisdiction. Upon the admitted facts of this case the civil service board had jurisdiction, both of the subject matter and of the parties. It was expressly vested in this proceeding with the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal and to annul or affirm the order appealed from. If it did either of these upon insufficient evidence, its action in so doing was but error in the exercise of jurisdiction. As was pointed out in Roberts v. Police Court,
Waste, J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.
Myers, C.J., Waste, J., and Seawell, J., dissent from the order denying the petition for rehearing. *Page 242
Frazee v. Civil Service Board , 170 Cal. App. 2d 333 ( 1959 )
Swars v. Council of the City of Vallejo , 64 Cal. App. 2d 858 ( 1944 )
Cantrell v. Board of Supervisors , 87 Cal. App. 2d 471 ( 1948 )
Meyers v. Board of Supervisors , 110 Cal. App. 2d 623 ( 1952 )
Peter v. Board of Supervisors , 78 Cal. App. 2d 515 ( 1947 )
Nilsson v. State Personnel Board , 25 Cal. App. 2d 699 ( 1938 )
Ware v. Morgan County School District Re-3 , 719 P.2d 351 ( 1986 )