Santa Rosa Lighting Co. v. Woodward
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County and from an order refusing a new trial. William R. Daingerfield, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
On November 19, 1895, the judge of the superior court of Sonoma county issued the alternative writ of the court directed to the defendants, the common council of the city of Santa Rosa, commanding them to advertise, as required by law, for bids for the lighting of the streets and public buildings and other public places of said city, and to show cause why a. peremptory writ of mandate should not issue requiring them so to act.
A demurrer to the original petition was sustained and ten days *31given to amend, and in the mean time the alternative writ was continued in force.
A verified,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Boyne v. RyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Jacobs v. Bd. of Supervisors of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Eby v. Board of School Trustees of Red Bank School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Fairchild v. WallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Splivalo v. BryanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by14 opinions
- Crowe v. BoyleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- American Distilling Co. v. City Council of SausalitoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Wirin v. ParkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Barnett v. LincolnWashington Supreme Court · 1931
- Monahan v. AllenMontana Supreme Court · 1913
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.