Legal Opinion

People ex rel. Labachotte v. Morris

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 8, 1940No. Civ. No. 11437PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.

This proceeding in quo warranto was brought for the purpose of challenging the right of the defendant to the office of member of the State Board of Chiropractic Exam*431iners. The cause was tried upon stipulated facts and resulted in a judgment decreeing that the defendant was not entitled to said office and that the relator was entitled thereto. Defendant appeals from said judgment.

Defendant Franklin Morris was appointed by the governor as a member of said board on April 5, 1939, to succeed the relator, Roy G. Labachotte, who was then in office. The trial court held that the relator was entitled…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. PhilbrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  2. Boyd v. HuntingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Riley v. ForbesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. People v. Southern Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
  5. State ex inf. Major ex rel. Sikes v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Barber v. BlueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Untitled California Attorney General Opinion, California Attorney General Reports2022
  3. Untitled California Attorney General Opinion, California Attorney General Reports2022
  4. Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1969

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

Powered by the Exa API