Bickerdike v. State
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, George A. Sturtevant, Deputy Attorney-General, and Devlin & Devlin, for Appellant. George E. Bates, W. C. Van Fleet, and Edward F. Treadwell, for Respondent. Robertson T. McKisick, Amicus Curiœ, also for Respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.
This is an action brought under the provisions of an act entitled “An act authorizing suits against the state on claims or demands arising under an act of the legislature entitled an act fixing a bounty on coyote scalps, approved March 31st, 1891, and regulating the procedure therein.” (Stats. 1901, p. 646.)
The act of March 31, 1891, (Stats. 1891, p. 280,) provided that a bounty of five dollars should be paid from the general fund of the state to each person who should kill and destroy any coyote or coyotes in any county of the state for each coyote so destroyed, and contained various…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People ex rel. McCullough v. PachecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Nougues v. DouglassCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Ingram v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- People ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
- Dunn v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- California Cigarette Concessions, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Quantification Settlement Agreement CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- McConnell v. Bible InstituteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Massie v. ChatomCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Riley v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.