Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1939–1978 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Forstner v. City & County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences1978They claim that they had a constitutional right to refuse to answer under the circumstances, but it is certain that they had no constitutional right to remain police officers in the face of their clear violation of the duty imposed upon them.” “In the course of his work, a public officer or employee must yield some of the privileges which are enjoyed by the citizenry at large.” (Forstner v. City etc. of San Francisco (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 625, 632 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 621 ].) There can be no doubt that appellant, a correctional officer, whose duty it is to guard and care for the inmates at San Quent 1978They claim that they had a constitutional right to refuse to answer under the circumstances, but it is certain that they had no constitutional right to remain police officers in the face of their clear violation of the duty imposed upon them.” “In the course of his work, a public officer or employee must yield some of the privileges which are enjoyed by the citizenry at large.” (Forstner v. City etc. of San Francisco (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 625, 632 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 621 ].) There can be no doubt that appellant, a correctional officer, whose duty it is to guard and care for the inmates at San Quent | 1 | 1 |
Board of Education v. Dresden Swangreen2 sentences1954(McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216 [ 29 N.E. 517 ].) We are of the opinion that such a violation of duty would constitute cause for dismissal even in the absence of any specific rule requiring such officers to give testimony before the grand jury, ...” In the McAuliffe case Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Massachusetts court, succinctly stated the rule: “The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” In the recent case of Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal. 2d 546, 556 [ 261 P.2d 261 ], our Supreme Cou 1954(McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216 [ 29 N.E. 517 ].) We are of the opinion that such a violation of duty would constitute cause for dismissal even in the absence of any specific rule requiring such officers to give testimony before the grand jury, ...” In the McAuliffe case Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Massachusetts court, succinctly stated the rule: “The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” In the recent case of Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal. 2d 546, 556 [ 261 P.2d 261 ], our Supreme Cou | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McAuliffe v. Mayor and Board of Aldermen
green
2 sentences1967They claim that they had a constitutional right to refuse to answer under the circumstances, but it is certain that they had no constitutional right to remain police officers in the face of their clear violation of the duty imposed upon them. ( McAuliffe v. Mayor [ etc. of City ] of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216 [ 29 N.E. 517 ].) We are of the opinion that such a violation of duty would constitute cause for dismissal even in the absence of any specific rule requiring such officers to give testimony before the grand jury, or of any specific rule relating to "conduct unbecoming an officer." That su 1967They claim that they had a constitutional right to refuse to answer under the circumstances, but it is certain that they had no constitutional right to remain police officers in the face of their clear violation of the duty imposed upon them. ( McAuliffe v. Mayor [ etc. of City ] of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216 [ 29 N.E. 517 ].) We are of the opinion that such a violation of duty would constitute cause for dismissal even in the absence of any specific rule requiring such officers to give testimony before the grand jury, or of any specific rule relating to "conduct unbecoming an officer." That su | 4 | 1939–1967 |
Goldsmith v. Board of Education of Sacramento City High School District
green
2 sentences1954(McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216 [ 29 N.E. 517 ].) We are of the opinion that such a violation of duty would constitute cause for dismissal even in the absence of any specific rule requiring such officers to give testimony before the grand jury, ...” In the McAuliffe case Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Massachusetts court, succinctly stated the rule: “The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” In the recent case of Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal. 2d 546, 556 [ 261 P.2d 261 ], our Supreme Cou 1954(McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216 [ 29 N.E. 517 ].) We are of the opinion that such a violation of duty would constitute cause for dismissal even in the absence of any specific rule requiring such officers to give testimony before the grand jury, ...” In the McAuliffe case Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Massachusetts court, succinctly stated the rule: “The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” In the recent case of Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal. 2d 546, 556 [ 261 P.2d 261 ], our Supreme Cou | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.