Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
HALL v. BOARD OF STATE HARBOR COM'RS et al.
This is an appeal by respondents in the court below from a judgment ordering a writ of mandate to issue requiring respondents to reinstate petitioner in the position of secretary–stenographer of the Board of State Harbor Commissioners and for the payment of back salary from December 20, 1934.
Prior to December 19, 1934, petitioner had held a noncivil service position as secretary–stenographer with the Board of State Harbor Commissioners for a period of more than six months. On December 19, 1934, petitioner was given notice in writing that her services as secretary–stenographer would terminate at the close of business on December 19, 1934. On December 20, 1934, at the smallest fraction of time after midnight of December 19, 1934, article 24 of the State Constitution became effective. That article had the effect of blanketing petitioner into civil service in her position if under the facts it was operative upon her.
It was stipulated that 4:30 p. m. on December 19, 1934, was the close of the business day and “that at four thirty o'clock P. M. on December 19, 1934, the services of petitioner in the position of Secretary–Stenographer to the Board of State Harbor Commissioners of the State of California, and her occupancy of said position were terminated; that from four thirty o'clock P. M. on December 19, 1934, to twelve o'clock, midnight, on said day, petitioner was separated, dismissed and discharged from said position, and did not hold or occupy said position and was not an officer or employee of the State of California.”
Under the facts the case is governed by Lowy v. Reardon, 12 Cal.App.(2d) 748, 55 P.(2d) 1214. That case held that a person dismissed on December 19, 1934, was not blanketed into the civil service because the dismissal was effective before the constitutional amendment became operative.
Petitioner argues that, because she performed all the services required of her by law on December 19, 1934, her case is not governed by the Lowy Case. But it remains true that, at 4:30 p. m. on December 19, 1934, she was discharged and that she was not a state employee when the constitutional amendment became effective on December 20, 1934.
Judgment reversed.
DOOLING, Justice pro tem.
We concur: SPENCE, Acting P. J.; STURTEVANT, J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Civ. 10465.
Decided: July 09, 1937
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)