Legal Opinion
East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Sindelar
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 14, 1971No. Civ. 29157PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RATTIGAN, J.
This is an original petition for writ of mandate, filed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District, a public agency (hereinafter the “district”), to compel respondent Nathan J. Sindelar, its treasurer, to execute certain bonds in connection with their issuance and sale by the district as authorized by its board of directors. We have concluded that the district has properly invoked the original jurisdiction of this court, that respondent’s contention that the bonds are unauthorized is without merit, and that a peremptory writ of mandate should issue as prayed.
The board of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- County of Sacramento v. HickmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- O'Farrell v. County of SonomaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Clark v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. All Parties and PersonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Mills v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Monette-Shaw v. San Francisco Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Associated Students of North Peralta Community College v. Board of Trustees of Peralta Community College DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- California High-Speed Rail Authority v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Tooker v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Brown v. Fair Political Practices CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.