Ritz v. Lightston
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, P. J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying the application of appellant for a writ of mandate against the defendant as treasurer of the city of San Jose.
It is conceded that the defendant was, at all the times set forth in the verified petition, the treasurer of the city of San Jose, and that it was his duty, by virtue of his said office as such treasurer, to issue licenses to all persons conducting a legal business within the corporate limits of said city, where such business is authorized under the ordinances of said city, and where persons conducting the same are…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Crowley v. ChristensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Ex parte ChristensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Sandys v. WilliamsOregon Supreme Court · 1905
- People Ex Rel. Cairns v. . MurrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Ex Parte MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Fascination, Inc. v. HooverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- State Board of Equalization v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Schaub's Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage ControlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Hansen v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Jacques, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.