# Meyer v. Board of Public Works

> California Court of Appeal · April 27, 1942 · 51 Cal. App. 2d 456

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794098

## Case

- **Full name:** MOSIER M. MEYER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** April 27, 1942
- **Citations:** 51 Cal. App. 2d 456; 125 P.2d 50; 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 694
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Doran
- **Judges:** Desmond, Doran
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794098

## Opinion text

DORAN, J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment.
It is my opinion that courts, in proper eases, may legally afford relief by mandamus from wrongs that are the product of fraudulent or arbitrary action of administrative bodies. But mandamus will not lie for the purpose of, nor may courts by resort to such procedure undertake to control or direct administrative boards by, inquiring into the wisdom of their official action. Such problems, although they present opportunity for honest differences of opinion, raise no judicial questions. An allegation of fraud or of arbitrary action, in my opinion, is a necessary element to an action in mandamus under such circumstances.
The briefs on appeal on the part of both the appellant and respondents create confusion by disregarding the sole issue. The appellant states the question involved as follows: “Was the appellant lawfully removed from the position of Superintendent of Street Maintenance, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works of the City of Los Angeles?” The respondents, on the other hand, under the heading “Respondents’ Position on This Appeal,” assert the following: “Respondents argue, on this appeal: 1. That the order of the Civil Service Commission refusing to reinstate appellant is made final and conclusive, pursuant to the provisions of section 112 of the charter, and is therefore not subject to review by the courts. 2. That even though the civil service commission found that the grounds of removal were neither proven nor disproven, nevertheless it must, in order to reinstate appellant, further find him to be a fit and suitable person to fill the position from which he was removed.”
Both positions are entirely beside the issue, and all of the briefs discuss subjects entirely beyond the sole issue involved *472 in the appeal. That issue" concerns only the sufficiency of the petition. The prevailing opinion, which follows the briefs, necessarily falls into the same category. For example, the prevailing opinion contains the following: “It does not appear that the order of the commission was based on any prejudice against appellant, for, so far as the record indicates, he was given a fair and adequate hearing by the commission which found on the one hand that the charges against him were not proven and that he was not incompetent to perform the duties of the position which he had held, but on the other hand made the adverse finding upon the evidence before it as to fitness and suitability which bars appellant from reinstatement.” In my judgment, the determination of such questions on appeal has no bearing on the sufficiency of the pleadings.
Appellant elected to stand on the petition as presented, and declined to amend. I am in accord with that part of the prevailing opinion which holds in substance and effect that the allegation of fraud was a conclusion and therefore was insufficient. It follows that the demurrer properly was sustained.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 25, 1942.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9794098. Public record. Not legal advice.