McWILLIAMS v. CRANSTON (1962)

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Lucy McWILLIAMS, Plaintiff, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. Alan CRANSTON, Controller of the State of California, Defendant, Appeallant and Cross-Respondent.

Decided: December 21, 1962

Sullivan, Roche, Johnson & Farraher, San Francisco, Wilke, Fleury & Sapunor, Sacramento, for petitioner-appellant. Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., by William J. Power, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for respondent-appellant.

The cross-appeals involved here are (1) by the State Controller from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, granting petitioner Lucy McWilliams a writ of mandate, directing said Controller to pay her the allowances provided by the Judges' Retirement Law (Government Code, sec. 75104.4) as amended in 1959 (Stats. 1959, c. 2105, p. 4874, sec. 1); (2) by petitioner from that part of the judgment which denied her right to interest on said allowances from the dates when such allowances became due.

Robert L. McWilliams died on October 24, 1955, while holding office as a superior court judge. At the time of his death he was over the age of 70 years and had continuously served as a judge since 1939 and was, therefore, eligible for retirement. Petitioner, after the judge's death, received $5,316.21, being the amount of his contributions to the Judges' Retirement Fund.

Additional facts, the issues raised, rules applicable and reasons therefor are identical with those in Jorgensen v. Cranston, Cal.App., 27 Cal.Rptr. 297.

On the authority of said Jorgensen v. Cranston, the judgment is affirmed.

PIERCE, Presiding Justice.

SCHOTTKY, J., concurs.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network