Johnson v. City of Seattle
Decision Date | 05 July 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 34087,34087 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | Chauncey E. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondent. |
E. K. Marohn, Seattle, for appellant.
A. C. Van Soelen, C. V. Hoard, Seattle, for respondent.
In this action the plaintiff is seeking pay for overtime work, allegedly performed while he was employed as a sanitation patrolman on the defendant's Cedar River watershed. He alleges that, under the applicable city ordinances, he is entitled to payment for work performed in excess of eight hours per day on a five-day week basis, or in excess of forty hours per week; that he has been paid only a salary of approximately three hundred dollars per month, and that his demands for certification on the payroll for the overtime work and payment therefor have been refused. The defendant's demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and a judgment of dismissal was entered. Plaintiff appeals.
The parties concede that the applicable ordinance of the city of Seattle (cf. Ordinance 83600 of the city of Seattle) provides:
(Emphasis supplied.)
Appellant's two assignments of error raise but one question; i. e., whether the ordinance provides for overtime pay for 'Sanitation Patrolmen.' The ordinance is not exceptionally well drafted: (a) as to form, and (b) as to the choice of language used; nevertheless, its meaning appears to us to be clear and unambiguous. The key to its interpretation and application in the instant case is to be found in the very first portion of the ordinance which provides specifically that 'Eight hours shall constitute a day's work for all employees of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beck v. Washington
...even where the constitutional claims arise from the trial court's interpretation of the challenged statute. E.g., Johnson v. Seattle, 50 Wash.2d 543, 313 P.2d 676 (1957).2 Petitioner's formal attack at the trial court level did not even mention § 10.28.030, much less argue that a restrictiv......
-
Richter v. Port of Seattle
...absence of objective manifestations of mutual assent to definite terms supported by consideration, no contract was formed."); Sandeman, 50 Wn.2d at 543 ("In the case at bar, the minds of the parties did not meet upon a definite and certain agreement to pay a commission or bonus. Something f......
-
Richter v. Port of Seattle
... ... 6 The property owner must petition the legislative authority of Page 3 a city to begin this process. 7 A city cannot approve a street vacation unless it is in the public interest. 8 The Port initially thought ... Id. 54. See RAP 10.3(c); Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley , 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992); State v. Johnson , 119 Wn.2d 167, 171, 829 P.2d 1082 (1992). 55. 152 Wn.2d 171, 94 P.3d 945 (2004). 56. 50 Wn.2d 539, 314 P.2d 428 ... ...
- Ransom v. Haner