Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtGIBSON; CARTER
Citation249 P.2d 287,39 Cal.2d 698
PartiesHIRSCHMAN et al. v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al. L. A. 22035.
Decision Date17 October 1952

Page 287

249 P.2d 287
39 Cal.2d 698
HIRSCHMAN et al.
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al.
L. A. 22035.
Supreme Court of California, in Bank.
Oct. 17, 1952.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1952.
See 250 P.2d 145.

[39 Cal.2d 699] Margolis & McTernan, John T. McTernan, William B. Murrish, Wirin, Rissman & Okrand, A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, and Nanette Dembitz, New York City, for appellants.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Gerald G. Kelly, Asst. County Counsel and Robert L. Trapp, Deputy County Counsel, for respondents.

GIBSON, Chief Justice.

Plaintiffs, permanent civil service employees of the County of Los Angeles, were discharged because they refused to execute the oath and affidavits prescribed by orders of the county board of supervisors made in 1947 and 1948. 1 The county civil service commission sustained the discharges after a hearing upon stipulated facts, and plaintiffs sought a writ of mandate in the superior court to compel their reinstatement and the payment of wages retroactive to the date of discharge. This appeal was taken from the judgment denying the requested relief.

The oath and affidavits are as follows:

'A. Oath of Office or Employment

'I, _ _ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of California, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office or employment on which I am about to enter or am now engaged. So Help Me God.

Page 288

'B. Affidavit Re Subversive Activity.

'I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I now a member, nor have I been since December 7, 1941, [39 Cal.2d 700] a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or State of California, or County of Los Angeles, by force or violence, except those specified as follows: _ _ (the organizations here to be listed embrace all organizations advocating the overthrow of government by force or violence including any of the hereinafter named if they should ever be determined by a court of law to advocate the overthrow of government by force or violence); and that during such time as I am an officer or employee of the County of Los Angeles, I will not advocate nor become a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States, or State of California, or County of Los Angeles, by force or violence.

'C. Affidavit Re Aliases

'I do further swear (or affirm) that I have never used or been known by any names other than those listed as follows: _ _.

'D. Membership In Organizations

'I do further swear (or affirm) that I have never been a member of, or directly or indirectly supported or followed any of the hereinafter listed organizations, except those that I indicate by an X mark.' (Next follows a list of 142 organizations which were selected from those mentioned in one or more of the reports of the Joint Fact-Finding Committee of the California Legislature on Un-American Activities in California.)

All of the facts pertinent to this case were stipulated to by the parties when the matter was before the county civil service commission. It appears that plaintiffs were given an opportunity to take the oath and make the affidavits but did not do so. Thereafter, on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Whitney v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 1, 1962
    ...element of the offense (see Pockman v. Leonard, 39 Cal.2d 676, 685, 249 P.2d 267; Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.2d 698, 702, 249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145); so interpreted it would not be invalid as imposing strict criminal liability. Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510, 514-51......
  • First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 24, 1957
    ...Leonard, supra, 39 Cal.2d 676, 249 P.2d 267); as have county employees [48 Cal.2d 441] (Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.2d 698, 249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145; Steiner v. Darby, 88 Cal.App.2d 481, 199 P.2d 429), municipal employees (Garner v. Board of Public Works of City of Los Ange......
  • Coe v. Davidson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 1974
    ...under the Vogel holding (supra) and the cases cited therein. In Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles (1952) 39 Cal.2d 698, 702, 249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145, our Supreme Court construed an oath requiring public employees to disclose membership in organizations advocating violent or forceful ove......
  • Bogacki v. Board of Supervisors
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • October 8, 1971
    ...expressly affirmed against a constitutional attack by a prior judicial decision (Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles (1952) 39 Cal.2d 698, 249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145) and the Wilson court offered absolutely no suggestion that the earlier conclusion had been mistaken. Under these circumstance......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Whitney v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 1, 1962
    ...element of the offense (see Pockman v. Leonard, 39 Cal.2d 676, 685, 249 P.2d 267; Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.2d 698, 702, 249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145); so interpreted it would not be invalid as imposing strict criminal liability. Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510, 514-51......
  • First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 24, 1957
    ...Leonard, supra, 39 Cal.2d 676, 249 P.2d 267); as have county employees [48 Cal.2d 441] (Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.2d 698, 249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145; Steiner v. Darby, 88 Cal.App.2d 481, 199 P.2d 429), municipal employees (Garner v. Board of Public Works of City of Los Ange......
  • Coe v. Davidson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 1974
    ...under the Vogel holding (supra) and the cases cited therein. In Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles (1952) 39 Cal.2d 698, 702, 249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145, our Supreme Court construed an oath requiring public employees to disclose membership in organizations advocating violent or forceful ove......
  • Bogacki v. Board of Supervisors
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • October 8, 1971
    ...expressly affirmed against a constitutional attack by a prior judicial decision (Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles (1952) 39 Cal.2d 698, 249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145) and the Wilson court offered absolutely no suggestion that the earlier conclusion had been mistaken. Under these circumstance......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT