Legal Opinion

Mushet v. Department of Public Service

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 17, 1917No. Civ. No. 2445PublishedCited by 18 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Albert Lee Stephens, City Attorney, W. B. Mathews, Lewis E. Whitehead, and Wm. B. Himrod, for Appellants.

1Opinion of the Court

WORKS, J., pro tem.

This action was commenced for the purpose of compelling appellants, by writ of mandate, to allow respondent to inspect and examine certain of the books of account, records, papers, and documents kept by appellants, under the claim that the same are public records. The petition for the writ alleges that respondent is a resident, citizen, and taxpayer of the city of Los Angeles, to the affairs of which the duties of appellants relate. The appellants answered the petition and the respondent made a motion for judgment on thé pleadings, which was granted and judgment was…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. In Re Board of Rapid Transit RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
  3. Martin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Clement v. GrahamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
  5. Hobbs v. Tom Reed Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. MacEwan v. HOLMOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  2. City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Coldwell v. Board of Public WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. State Ex Rel. Cummer v. PaceSupreme Court of Florida · 1935
  5. Mooney v. Bartenders Union Local No. 284California Supreme Court · 1957

13 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