City of Long Beach v. Lisenby
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Wheaton A. Gray, Waldo M. York, Harry M. Irwin, Geo. L. Hoodenpyl and D. L. Bathurst for Petitioner.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This is a proceeding in. which the petitioner seeks a writ of mandate requiring the defendants, as its officials charged with a duty so to do, to execute a certain bond for the sum of $563.23, issued under the provisions of a certain ordinance of the petitioner authorizing the issuance of such bond for the purpose of funding and thereby providing for the eventual payment of an outstanding indebtedness in the form of a judgment against the petitioner, evidenced by a warrant issued to the judgment creditor for said sum. The facts of the ease are undisputed and may be briefly stated as…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- McBean v. City of FresnoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Chafor v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Ketchum v. . the City of Buffalo and AustinNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Ft. Dodge Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of Ft. DodgeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- City of Chicago v. SextonIllinois Supreme Court · 1885
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- City of Sacramento v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Liddell v. MissouriCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
- American Co. v. City of LakeportCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Craton Liddell v. State of Missouri, Craton Liddell v. City of St. Louis, Plaintiff-Intervenor/appellant. In Re City of St. Louis, Paul Berra and Ronald A. LeggettCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
- Lotts v. Board of Park CommissionersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.