Legal Opinion

Byington v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 1939No. S. F. 16169PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

The petitioners Byington, Filmer, Me Galium, McLaughlin and Murphy, as members of and constituting the Public Utilities Commission of the city and county of San Francisco, and the petitioner Cahill, as the manager of utilities of said city and county, seek by this proceeding to review and annul an order of the respondent superior court adjudging them guilty of contempt and directing that each pay a fine of $100 or in lieu thereof to serve one day in jail for each $5 of the fine remaining unpaid. The alleged contempt consisted of the violation of an injunction entered by the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Baar v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Meridian, Ltd. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Clute v. Superior Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1908
  4. United Railroads of San Francisco v. Superior Court of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Ohaver v. FenechCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Tex-Cal Land Management, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Food & Grocery Bureau v. GarfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Smith v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Union Pacific Railroad v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

15 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