McClatchy v. Matthews
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. George A. Knight, Knight & Heggerty, Tirey L. Ford, Attorney-General, and C. N. Post, Assistant Attorney-General, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.
This was an application for a writ of mandamus, directed to the appellant, as secretary of the state board of health of the state of California, commanding him to permit the respondents to inspect and take copies of the written reports of Doctors Mauser and Ryfkogel of a bacteriological examination of an alleged ease of bubonic plague made for the state board of health.
The petition for. the writ was filed with the court below, and an alternative writ issued thereupon, on the third day of August, 1900. In the petition,—to wit, the affidavit of Herbert A. French,—it is stated that he is a…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Kimberlin v. Los Angeles City High School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Scott v. Superior Court of Alameda CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Ertman v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Lotus Car Ltd. v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Lotus Car Ltd. v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.