City of Los Angeles v. Lewis
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. 0 ’Melveny, Stephens & Millikin, Walter K. Tuller, and J. P. Chandler, for Intervener and Appellant. Fredericks & Hanna, for Respondent-Defendant and Appellant. Albert Lee Stephens, City Attorney, W. B. Mathews, A. J. Hill, County Counsel, Roy V. Reppy, Assistant City Counsel, and Robert B. Murphy, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioners-Plaintiffs and Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
The city of Los Angeles was the owner of a plant for the manufacture of Portland cement, located in Kern County, California. It had used the product of its factory in the construction of its waterworks. Thereafter, in 1913, [Stats. 1913, p. 669], the legislature of the state, in its enumeration of the powers of board of supervisors, added a new subdivision to section 4041 of the Political Code (subd. 9a), providing as follows: “To purchase, lease, construct or otherwise acquire, own, operate, manage and control, in any county in the state, cement manufacturing plant; and to sell the products…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Stuart v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Loan Assn. v. TopekaSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- People ex rel. Detroit & Howell Railroad v. Township BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
- Attorney General v. City of Eau ClaireWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- City of S. Pasadena v. Pasadena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Kopp v. Fair Political Practices CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- In Re KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- People's Advocate, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Peterson v. HaganWashington Supreme Court · 1960
- Village of Moyie Springs v. Aurora Manufacturing Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1960
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.