Legal Opinion

Thomson v. Call

California Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1985No. S.F. 24693PublishedCited by 112 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KAUS, J.

The truism that a person cannot serve two masters simultaneously finds expression in California’s statutory doctrine that no public official shall be financially interested in any contract made by that person or by any body or board of which he or she is a member.1 Plaintiffs in this taxpayers’ suit challenge the validity of a transaction in which defendant Cebert Properties, Inc., purchased a parcel of land from defendants Hubert F. Call (Call) and Ruth L. Call, his wife, for $258,000 and then conveyed the parcel to the City of Albany (city)—while Call was a member of the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. Stigall v. City of TaftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Berka v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Schaefer v. BerinsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  5. Stockton Plumbing & Supply Co. v. WheelerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by112 opinions

  1. Lexin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Eldridge v. Sierra View Local Hospital DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  3. Green v. Mt. Diablo Hospital DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  4. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Mfg. Co.California Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Davis v. Fresno Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015

107 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API